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:
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.
Again, you said their job was to drive in runs...hence the repeated use of RBI to show you Schmidt did it better. Since showing you that Schmidt did it better, you have now altered it by somehow thinking that it is somehow better to drive in another runner than to drive in oneself with a home run.
Now you are relegating home runs to just a mere occurrence as if they matter the same as any other hit. News for you, home runs are the best outcome for a hitter. So yes, being a 'hitter' includes to a great degree home runs that are 'hit'. Get it?
Being a 'hitter' isn't someone who just puts the bat on the ball or has a higher batting average...as you seem to think defines what a hitter is.
Schmidt has a better OB% and SLG% than Brett...and by a lot. Since you know this already, you tried to deflate those values by vaulting batting average and making contact to a level of value that does not exist, and you tried to vault RBI as the main criteria for MIDDLE OF THE ORDER HITTERS. Now, if you think batting third is not a middle of the order hitter and is more of a table setter, then that makes OB% even a little more valuable...and Schmidt batted third 3,8000 times and fourth 4,300 times. So either way you shoot yourself in the foot again, lol.
Also, being a 'hitter' as you say, also includes how many outs you make...and Brett made 1,183 MORE outs than Schmidt...some hitter to be making all those extra outs, lol. The number of outs you make greatly defines how good of a hitter you are. Yet you ignore those, just as you ignore walks...because walks are also part of the equation of being a 'hitter'. Yet somehow, walks are completely absent in any of your criteria.
Soooo, since walks are absent in your value of a hitter, because you believe they don't impact the game very much since they only allow the batter to move to first and doesn't advance as many runners as a 'hit' does.....I then laid out for you that 1,400 of Brett's hits did the exact same thing as those same walks you ignore for Schmidt. So you must now strike those 1,400 hits from Brett's resume just as you do Schmidt's walks.
When you do account for the proper value of every walk, single, double, triple, Home Run, weigh the negative impact of outs made, strikeout made....you will see that those are all accounted for to a very high degree of validity in either/or OB%, SLG%, OPS+, WPA, or Base Runs in each base/out state...and in every single one of those measurements, Schmidt is superior HITTER than Brett. PERIOD.
If you want to break it down in laymen's terms, here is the following stat break down; here is what they averaged per a 600 at bat season.
Pretty darn straight forward, and the last category is total bases.
We don't even need to look at walks. Schmidt already beats him without walks even entering the picture. So for you guys who don't even understand the value of walks...go ahead and throw them out...Schmidt doesn't even need them to be a better hitter than Brett.
But you have to include walks and outs made. Per a 700 plate appearance season:
Brett was by no means an easy out...but he WAS an EASIER out than Schmidt, lol and that is the ironic thing in all of this.
Schmidt beats him in everything, both new and old school measurements. Schmidt advanced base runners more efficiently and got on base more efficiently. There is no debate. Then when you consider that Brett only played when he was 100% and sat more often vs unfavorable matchups than Schmidt did, and Brett never proved he could sustain those percentages playing 160 games a year......this is a pretty easy win hitting wise for Schmidt.
Now that you are educated a little more on what constitutes a hitter, and understand the value of a walk, single, double. triple, home run, and OUT MADE a little better....the conclusion is the same as every highly valid measurement says.... that Schmidt is the better hitter than Brett. If you don't like the term 'hitter', then you can substitute 'better offensive player' than Brett.
Which brings us back to your odd defensive conclusions. You somehow equate George Brett having more triples into that making him a better defender than Schmidt. Odd. Unfortunately, the ability to hit triples did not translate to Brett picking up ground balls as cleanly as Schmidt.
The reality is, Schmidt averaged more assists per game and made less errors per game at third base...and he sustained those rates for 4,500 MORE innings at third than Brett. Even if they were equal in terms of assists and errors, the fact that Schmidt did it for over 4,500 MORE innings at third puts a wide gap into their defensive value. They weren't equal though. Schmidt was superior
If you want to look deeper into those defensive numbers and not take them at face value, it probably is a good idea to do so. You can look at the pitching staffs and see how many ground balls they provided, how many strikeouts they had that precluded any fielding opportunites, etc. You can look at all of that...and their defensive gap widens even more with Schmidt coming out ahead.
SO at face value defensively, Schmidt was superior at getting to balls and superior at handling them(making less errors per chance).
Schmidt did that for 4,500 MORE innings at third than Brett.
The conclusion is that Schmidt has a rather LARGE defensive lead over Brett. There is simply no way around that conclusion...and again, even if you gave them the same ability at getting to balls and making errors...the extra 4,500 innings Schmidt provided at Third still puts him ahead.
Brett only lasted until age 33 as a third baseman, so he missed all of his old man years as a third basemen where you lose a step or two and your range measures go down. Basically, Brett was simply not a good enough third baseman to keep his job there. That would't happen if he were an elite defender at third. Meanwhile, even at age 39 Schmidt's primary position was still third base. Schmidt had only one year where third base was not the bulk of his fielding position.
@Darin said:
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.
I won't laugh, mostly because I don't understand the point you're trying to make. It's probably funny, but I don't want to simply assume.
Anyway, whatever your point is, it has something to do with RBI and batting order position. Brett hit in the 3 spot for the great majority of his career and Schmidt split his time mostly between the 3 and 4 spots. Interestingly, both Brett and Schmidt batted in every spot in the order, at least a few times. And, interestingly and I think more relevantly, in every single case Schmidt got more RBI per plate appearance than Brett did.
For example, when they were in the 3 spot, Brett got 1207 RBI in 8325 plate appearances (.145 RBI per PA) while Schmidt got 605 RBI in 3855 PA (.157 RBI per PA). In the 4 spot, Brett got 122 RBI in 796 PA (.153 RBI per PA) while Schmidt got 725 RBI in 4354 PA (.167 RBI per PA). And since I don't want to type them all out, you'll just have to trust me that the math also holds for spots 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, even though they each batted few enough times in some spots that the results would seemingly be random.
So while I don't know what your point was supposed to be, I do know that no matter where Brett and Schmidt hit in the batting order Schmidt was getting more RBI than Brett. I think that probably blows your point out of the water and opens the door for me to laugh, but you'll have to tell me if your point survived this simple little exercise.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1970s said:
This is what the Schmidt crowd looks like when trying to kick Brett's fielding, when in fact
Schmidt played more than 70 percent of his games on astro turf. LOL at these fielding
geeks who talk out there you know what.
You are welcome to incorporate the fact that Schmidt played 72% of his games on turf and Brett 58%...and check any differences they make. You are going to find that you come waaaay short in making up the gap where Schmidt played 4,500 more innings than Brett...because Brett was not good enough to hold a job at third base.
Just a few things to note when you look into it. One breakdown of turf vs grass fields in the decade of the 80's
Fielding percentage on Grass for third base was .948
Fielding percentage on turf for a third base was .951
What that means is, for only the small margin of difference in the games they played on turf, Schmidt still fielded at a higher percentage compared to turf than Brett did compared to grass.
Putouts and assists were identical on grass vs turf....so it doesn't account for the fact that Schmidt got to far more balls than Brett.
Double plays were higher on grass as opposed to turf. So that small ground that Brett makes up is partially lost in the double play aspect.
The net effect is minimal as it is, as you can see the similarities in the fielding percentages on grass vs turf.
The fact that Brett ALSO played the majority of his games on turf takes a huge bite out of that minimal effect.
The fact that Brett played 4,500 less innings at third makes the fielding gap insurmontable between the two.
Perhaps if Brett was a good fielding third baseman, he would have been able to hold a job there, and play that position as often as Schmidt did, or play it as an older player when it is even harder.
I thank you for actually trying to dig deeper. That is actually a step in the right direction by 'discovering' the difference. However, you severely overestimated its impact.
And you lost again.
PS, I just did a quick home/road fielding percentage check for Schmidt. I got through 1985 and Schmidt's lifetime HOME fielding percentage was .951. Being that his lifetime fielding percentage was .955......his home turf wasn't helping him like you think.
Notice the experts never mention all the scary hitting pitchers Schmidt got to face in the N.L.
where the third basemen in the A.L. were facing a DH, always one of the best hitters in the lineup.
And since I've proven Brett was better at hitting righties, who Schmidt faced 76% of the time, all they
can rant about now is RBI's. LOL.
In conclusion, Brett was a better hitter than Schmidt, except against lefties, so if you want to pinch hit
for George when a lefty is pitching 24% of the time, that would be a good move, let Mike have a few at bats.
Being that I just debunked your astroturf fielding comparison between Brett and Schmidt above. Lets move on to another topic you seem stuck on:
George Brett in the post season. Since we are on the topic of fielding.
George Brett's lifetime post season fielding percentage at 3B was .920. If you don't know, .920 is bad and well below his .951 lifetime fielding percentage. How is that possible if Brett was not a choker?? DId his fielding cost his team?? Being that they only won one world series, hmmm
Since you posted ONE play Schmidt didn't make in an all-star game, and then used it as proof he coulnd't field on grass, and proof he could not field in a big game....I just couldn't resist.
George Brett is the one who crapped the bed fielding .920 in the post season. Perhaps if Brett made a few more plays in the field, they would not have a post season series record of 3 win and 6 losses. Such a winner. Three series wins and six losses.
You really are entertaining, you have to be the first person ever who considers himself knowledgeable about
baseball, (of course no one else does) to call George Brett a choker. LOL.
But a guy who went 1-21 or whatever Schmidt did in his other world series isn't a choker?
C'mon, at least show some semblance of sanity.
1976 playoffs:
GM 1; Brett's first inning error leads to unearned run in zero zero game. They lose.
GM 5; Royals lose by one, Brett error leads to unearned run...differnce in the game.
1977 Playoffs:
Gm2 Tied 2-2 in the sixth, Brett error in bottom half leads to two unearned runs, blows game.
Gm5 Royals up 3-2 in top of the ninth. Brett error and unearned run contribute to blown victory
1981 division series
GM1 Brett error leads to three unearned runs in a scoreless game in the 4th. They lose.
Errors kill winning every time...especially when they lead to un-earned runs. Bad, bad, bad. He actually had MORE GAME IMPACTING POST SEASON ERROS THAN BILL BUCKNER DID!!!! Those ALCS were decided by one game....and Brett choked two games away in each of them by pulling a Bill Buckner four times, giving the Yanks all those un-earned runs.
George 'unearned run' Brett. George 'Buckner' Brett.
His errors directly impacted losses in both the 1976 and 1977 series...and the 1981 divisional series. . He choked according to your philosophies.
Like I said, there is a reason why they had a 3-6 post season series record. Royals should have won more than they did.
There is no choker or hero in post season in baseball...it is greatly a matter of luck. If Brett were a .444 hitter in the post season....then why not carry that over to the next season and do that all year????? Because he just got hot or lucky at the right time.
1970s For the record, you are not allowed to discount anything in regard to sample size...and then make a conclusion on a mere 166 post season at bats...you f'n moron. I pinned you in a corner. Worked perfectly.
So again, Schmidt vastly superior hitter, vastly superior fielder. Only an absolute idiot could see otherwise.
Brett got hot hitting wise in post season and did better than schmidt.
Brett fielding errors cost them at least two post season series...erasing that hitting lead he had.
In head to head competition, Schmidt beat Brett and won MVP....so post season is a wash for them.
Pretty darn straight forward, and the last category is total bases.
We don't even need to look at walks. Schmidt already beats him without walks even entering the picture. So for you guys who don't even understand the value of walks...go ahead and throw them out...Schmidt doesn't even need them to be a better hitter than Brett.
But you have to include walks and outs made. Per a 700 plate appearance season:
Brett was by no means an easy out...but he WAS an EASIER out than Schmidt, lol and that is the ironic thing in all of this.
Schmidt beats him in everything, both new and old school measurements. Schmidt advanced base runners more efficiently and got on base more efficiently. There is no debate. Then when you consider that Brett only played when he was 100% and sat more often vs unfavorable matchups than Schmidt did, and Brett never proved he could sustain those percentages playing 160 games a year......this is a pretty easy win hitting wise for Schmidt.
That is all you neeed to know in regard to hitting.
The reality is, Schmidt averaged more assists per game and made less errors per game at third base...and he sustained those rates for 4,500 MORE innings at third than Brett. Even if they were equal in terms of assists and errors, the fact that Schmidt did it for over 4,500 MORE innings at third puts a wide gap into their defensive value. They weren't equal though. Schmidt was superior.
That is all you need to know about fielding.
As for the post season, they each one won world series. Schmidt beat him head to head....and Brett's fielding cost his team TWO post season series.
PS, 1970s I'm still waiting for your baseball challenge, if you can get your un-athletic body off the couch. You can have Darin too...lol. Two stiffs. lol
@Darin said:
Notice the experts never mention all the scary hitting pitchers Schmidt got to face in the N.L.
where the third basemen in the A.L. were facing a DH, always one of the best hitters in the lineup.
And since I've proven Brett was better at hitting righties, who Schmidt faced 76% of the time, all they
can rant about now is RBI's. LOL.
In conclusion, Brett was a better hitter than Schmidt, except against lefties, so if you want to pinch hit
for George when a lefty is pitching 24% of the time, that would be a good move, let Mike have a few at bats.
This made me laugh. Twice.
The first laugh came when you said we "never mention" the difference between facing pitchers and DHs. There's too many Brett/Schmidt threads now for me to remember which one it was in, but I made a fairly long post on that topic. Since, like you, I have no stats to back up my position I didn't draw any definitive conclusions, but my gut tells me that NL 3B are at a very, very slight disadvantage relative to AL 3B, because (1) most DHs are fly ball hitters and/or LH hitters, and (2) NL 3B face a ton more bunts than AL 3B. The laugh didn't come at your conjecture that it's AL 3B at a very, very slight disadvantage (I will laugh if you think it's more than that), but that you said I'd never mentioned it. You either didn't read my post or didn't understand it; either way, you obviously aren't in any position to comment on my posts.
The second laugh came when you said Brett was a better hitter "except against lefties", as if a lefty was such a rare thing to encounter that they didn't really count. Anyone but you, I'd know a statement like that was a joke, and a funny one. But it wasn't a joke, which made it funnier.
If you insist on continuing to post on a topic that you so clearly don't comprehend, I will go back to the short form "this made me laugh". This long form post is a sincere effort to get you stop humiliating yourself; to make sure you understand that I really and truly am laughing at you at that you are practically begging me to do it. The bad dallasactuary is enjoying laughing at your expense, but the good dallasactuary is starting to feel sorry for you. But this is the last you are likely hear from good dallasactuary.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Darin said:
Notice the experts never mention all the scary hitting pitchers Schmidt got to face in the N.L.
where the third basemen in the A.L. were facing a DH, always one of the best hitters in the lineup.
And since I've proven Brett was better at hitting righties, who Schmidt faced 76% of the time, all they
can rant about now is RBI's. LOL.
In conclusion, Brett was a better hitter than Schmidt, except against lefties, so if you want to pinch hit
for George when a lefty is pitching 24% of the time, that would be a good move, let Mike have a few at bats.
I agree this may be the dumbest thing ever posted on this board.
First off, Darin you actually stated that 'It is their job to drive in runs, not to walk'. Then once it was shown that Schmidt did that better than Brett too(Schmidt 111 RBI per 700 plate appearances, Brett 96), you resorted to some nonsense above, because your lone criteria was shot to pieces.
This lefty/righty thing. Cut to the chase:
Brett vs RH .906 OPS
Schmidt vs RH .880 OPS
Brett vs LH .760 OPS...no wonder why you didn't bother to actually post that number, as ROB DEER has a .766 OPS!
Schmidt vs LH . 993.....and Willie Mays only sits at a .941 lifetime OPS.
So yeah, vs RH Brett is better by a little. But you neglect to say that Brett becomes Rob Deer vs Lefites, and Schmidt better than Willie Mays.
Finally, and most importantly:
Brett TOTAL OPS .857
Schmidt TOTAL OPS .908......where is the mystery? LOL. This is the only number that matters.
My sig line:
If you want to break it down in laymen's terms, here is the following stat break down; here is what they averaged per a 600 at bat season.
Pretty darn straight forward, and the last category is total bases.
We don't even need to look at walks. Schmidt already beats him without walks even entering the picture. So for you guys who don't even understand the value of walks...go ahead and throw them out...Schmidt doesn't even need them to be a better hitter than Brett.
But you have to include walks and outs made. Per a 700 plate appearance season:
Brett was by no means an easy out...but he WAS an EASIER out than Schmidt, lol and that is the ironic thing in all of this.
Schmidt beats him in everything, both new and old school measurements. Schmidt advanced base runners more efficiently and got on base more efficiently. There is no debate. Then when you consider that Brett only played when he was 100% and sat more often vs unfavorable matchups than Schmidt did, and Brett never proved he could sustain those percentages playing 160 games a year......this is a pretty easy win hitting wise for Schmidt.
That is all you neeed to know in regard to hitting.
For fielding:
The reality is, Schmidt averaged more assists per game and made less errors per game at third base...and he sustained those rates for 4,500 MORE innings at third than Brett. Even if they were equal in terms of assists and errors, the fact that Schmidt did it for over 4,500 MORE innings at third puts a wide gap into their defensive value. They weren't equal though. Schmidt was superior.
As for the post season:
George 'Buckner' Brett crapped his pants in the field, with his errors directly leading to several unearned runs and losses in both the 1976 and 1977 ALCS, both of which were decided by one game. His error and three unearned runs also lost his team game one of the 1981 ALDS, digging them a hole. Those blunders are a big reason why Brett's teams won only three post season series and LOST SIX...because he choked on easy ground balls. Also, if it wasn't for a blind umpire in 1985, Brett would never have won a single title.
I decided to check to see if 1970s claim of turf fields helping Schmidt field better than Bret had any merit. It was a fair point. Now, I already knew that whatever finding came about was going to be very small because like Schmidt, Brett also played the majority of his games on turf, albeit less than Schmidt. I also already knew that Schmidt's home/road fielding stats were almost identical, so I had a feeling what I would most likely find.
So I checked the game logs of every one of Schmidt's games, and the 600 odd games he played third base on natural grass, and the 1600 odd games he played on turf(both home and away turf).
What came up was not too surprising.
On Natural grass Schmidt averaged .140 errors per game.
On Artificial turf Schmidt averaged .141 errors per game.
I did count by hand, so if I missed a couple games, so be it...because the info was not going to be earth shattering...other than the shattering of some of the misconceptions posted on here.
It must be noted again, that no matter what would have been found, there would not have been nearly enough to overcome the fact that Schmidt played 4,500 more innings at third than Brett...and they both played the majority of their games on turf.
I thought maybe Tony Kubek should be aware of that too.
Wouldn't it be funny if I checked Brett's turf/grass fielding splits and it turns out that HE was actually the one helped by artificial turf???
@Skin2 said:
I decided to check to see if 1970s claim of turf fields helping Schmidt field better than Bret had any merit. It was a fair point. Now, I already knew that whatever finding came about was going to be very small because like Schmidt, Brett also played the majority of his games on turf, albeit less than Schmidt. I also already knew that Schmidt's home/road fielding stats were almost identical, so I had a feeling what I would most likely find.
So I checked the game logs of every one of Schmidt's games, and the 600 odd games he played third base on natural grass, and the 1600 odd games he played on turf(both home and away turf).
What came up was not too surprising.
On Natural grass Schmidt averaged .140 errors per game.
On Artificial turf Schmidt averaged .141 errors per game.
I did count by hand, so if I missed a couple games, so be it...because the info was not going to be earth shattering...other than the shattering of some of the misconceptions posted on here.
It must be noted again, that no matter what would have been found, there would not have been nearly enough to overcome the fact that Schmidt played 4,500 more innings at third than Brett...and they both played the majority of their games on turf.
I thought maybe Tony Kubek should be aware of that too.
If you make your Civil War decisions the same way you make your Schmidt-Brett decisions, then
you are losing credibility. Believing things you read from someone just because it supports your cause ???
What if I told you his post is flawed ? Would you believe it, or would you not believe it just
because his data makes you feel good about your point of view ?
Be careful how you express yourself. It can make people question your points of view in
other debates.
Mike Schmidt is the GOAT at third base, until some other player comes along who is better. That hasn't happened yet. I'm not saying it will never happen. But until then, this case is closed.
@Skin2 said:
I decided to check to see if 1970s claim of turf fields helping Schmidt field better than Bret had any merit. It was a fair point. Now, I already knew that whatever finding came about was going to be very small because like Schmidt, Brett also played the majority of his games on turf, albeit less than Schmidt. I also already knew that Schmidt's home/road fielding stats were almost identical, so I had a feeling what I would most likely find.
So I checked the game logs of every one of Schmidt's games, and the 600 odd games he played third base on natural grass, and the 1600 odd games he played on turf(both home and away turf).
What came up was not too surprising.
On Natural grass Schmidt averaged .140 errors per game.
On Artificial turf Schmidt averaged .141 errors per game.
I did count by hand, so if I missed a couple games, so be it...because the info was not going to be earth shattering...other than the shattering of some of the misconceptions posted on here.
It must be noted again, that no matter what would have been found, there would not have been nearly enough to overcome the fact that Schmidt played 4,500 more innings at third than Brett...and they both played the majority of their games on turf.
I thought maybe Tony Kubek should be aware of that too.
That's a good example of checkmate!
Yes, checkmate indeed.
1970s the stats are all there for you to see...have at it. Schmidt is vastly superior hitter and vastly superior fielder. Only an idiot could discount all the concrete evidence to show that exact thing...especially the hitting aspect. Cut and Dry my fried. Cut and dry.
1970s You are the type of guy that if I bet you today was Tuesday, you would be delusional enough to disagree. Have at it.
Oh, and anytime....anytime...you want to take me up on that challenge...I'm all in. I know you never played...you are too stupid to even know which way to run if you ever even hit the ball.
Have a good rest of the week forum...I enjoyed taking a couple clowns down and exposing them for their baseball ignorance, homerism...and just plain delusional thought processes.
LMAO. Has to be the best beat down in a thread ever.
George 'unearned run' Brett. Cost your team two ALCS because you couldn't field routine plays. Later. Out. Good night.
@1970s said:
LOL at SPIN2. Still hasn't given his sources for his false information.. Stevek still believes him too. LOL. I think I found out where SPIN2 gets his statistics from. Saw him reading it in on his way to McDonald's yesterday. 
Using your line of thinking and not accounting for sample size like you do with post season, we may as well move Mike Schmidt over to the best SS of all time discussion since he has played there(and played there more than Brett).
1970s I played, coached, and can still play. Any time you want that challenge lets go for it.
Just because Brett had a 1.023 OPS in 166 post season at bats, it doesn't mean that he could continue that rate the... SO again, I ask you, if that were the case, then why would Brett not continue produce a 1.000 OPS in the regular season?? Why save it for for the 30 post season at bats for that year? Why not continue doing that the following spring????? @logic.getaclue
So basically, your entire premise is based only on 166 post season at bats?? LOL...because EVERYTHING else you said has been beaten away. Schmidt beats him in everything else. I can't beat away those 166 at at bats, because Brett did great. He also crapped his pants in the field though, costing a few games and two ALCS.
However, what exactly did those 166 post season at bats bring to the Royals? One WOrld Series. The same Schmidt's brought....so both GM's in the end would be equally as happy with the final post season results. Isn't that the bottom line if basing your entire argument on post season? One WS each. Tie for post season.
PS I dont eat McDonalds...not interested in being a fat slob like you.
does this mean schmidt got to more balls, or had more ground balls hit his way? there really is no way to ever know now. we would need the spray charts from every game both player ever played to know how many balls were hit to their respective positions that they could not get to. those charts do not exist.
I will say that third base is certainly more of a reactive position compared to the middle infield where a more athletic player would get to more softly hit balls.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I agree100%. Defensive numbers are not very accurate for any measure, as I stated in your quote. The only real truth in the defensive comparison between the two is that Brett only played 77% of his games at third and was DH for 500...which puts him out of the discussion with Schmidts defensive value from the get go.
one thing that skin leads the forum in: use of the word "idiot"
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I did once argue that if a player was capable of handling a position but the manager played him elsewhere, that it shouldn't be held against his ability or value. However, as brought up in those discussions, the fact that a player DID play that position, trumps the player that COULD play it(but didn't).
You keep checkmating 1970s over and over again.
But it's hilarious, he keeps turning over the chessboard as if the game didn't happen. 🤣
Skin and dallas do have me convinced.
That if a lefty is the starting pitcher, I would start Schmidt over Brett.
But since a righty is starting 76% of the time I would put Brett in there since his numbers
are better against righthanders.
Now if Schmidt would have ever hit .437 for a year like Brett did in 1980 against righties, then of course he
could start against the Nolan Ryans', Tom Seavers', Jim Palmers' etc. But he simply isn't good
enough to hit against them, he would K way too often against the premier pitchers. When they're on
the mound, you want your superstars in there like George who pounded the crap out of them.
I have lost the ability to tell if the Brett backers are joking; I just laugh at everything they say.
If you're not joking, and you are seriously imagining that you have both of them on your roster at the same time as opposed to deciding which one of them to have on your roster, it would be about a wash against righties. Brett hit a tiny bit better than Schmidt against righties, but Schmidt probably makes up most or all of that tiny difference with his fielding.
dallas, let's be brutally honest. I hate to tell you this, but you kind of lost all credibility when you announced
to the world that you're the official defender of Bill Mazeroski. He did't even have a OB% of .300, correct?
A Jim Rice vs. Mike Schmidt debate would make more sense than Maz being a HOF'er.
So when we deal with you on threads like this its kind of hard to take you seriously.
I may have made a mistake.
You actually may have lost all credibility whenever there is a debate over who the better player is, you
always take the one with the lowest batting average. Its happened like 157 times.
A guy could have a batting average of .650 with an OB% of .651 and you would take the guy with
a .187 batting average with a .324 OB%.
Brett backers just like George because he's a pretty boy.
They have a man crush on him and it's obvious.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Both these posts made me laugh.
I not only announced that I was the official defender of Bill Mazeroski, I defended him in great detail and nowhere in that defense did his OB% get mentioned because it wasn't relevant. That you did not understand my defense of Mazeroski is on you, not me.
It is the nature of this forum to some degree, but most of the time, maybe even 157 times, I have taken the side of one player while the side of the other player was taken by a moron. That morons are drawn to batting averages rather than meaningful statistics and take the side of inferior players is on them, not me.
And because you don't know what the word "always" means, I have taken the side of Rico Carty vs. Jim Rice, Pedro Guerrero vs. Jim Rice, Stan Hack vs. Jim Rice, Harvey Kuenn vs. Jim Rice, Al Oliver vs. Jim RIce, Tony Oliva vs. Jim Rice, Minnie Minoso vs. Jim Rice, Will Clark vs. Jim Rice and Don Mattingly vs. Jim Rice. That you only remember that I also took the side of Gene Tenace vs. Jim Rice is on you, not me.
I am an innocent bystander in this epic debate and I will not embarrass myself trying to get involved other than saying that this thread peaked my interest to look at both these guys career stats and I do see that Brett got 2000 more at bats that Schmidt and their RBI stats are nearly identical. I will also admit that I’m a Neanderthal stat guy meaning I value RBI, right wrong or indifferent I don’t claim to be a smart baseball guy but I got to admit I side with Schmidt being better in the RBI category. The numbers are right there, 2000 MORE AB’s and the same RBI #’s? Just my 2 worthless cents 🤷♂️
1970s just removed you from his holiday greetings card list.
Teddy Ballgame missed 5 years due to Military service so I can’t comment on that. Either way I said what I said, don’t care who agrees or disagrees with me. I’m out of my league so unless I get punched in the back of the head walking out of the conversation I’m going back to being an innocent bystander 😂
He is still on mine, it’s all good. Skin is still my favorite all time poster though 😂
Foxx was almost as good as these two.