Dallas and skin say all the time how RBI's are a poor metric for judging a player, yet somehow its the most
important thing in the Schmidt vs. Brett debate.
Just like how OB% is a great stat for judging ballplayers ability to get on base, except of course for
Bill Mazeroski, because for him the normal rules don't apply, according to our Dallas 'expert' on baseball
Is there any chance we could put Dallas on waivers? Or trade both him and skin for a real expert?
@Darin said:
Dallas and skin say all the time how RBI's are a poor metric for judging a player, yet somehow its the most
important thing in the Schmidt vs. Brett debate.
We are not the ones who brought up RBI, that was moron #1. This thread is just another example of us explaining why raw RBI totals are a poor metric for judging a player.
Just like how OB% is a great stat for judging ballplayers ability to get on base, except of course for
Bill Mazeroski, because for him the normal rules don't apply, according to our Dallas 'expert' on baseball
If my case for Maz being in the HOF had anything to do with his hitting, his OBP would of course be relevant. But my case doesn't have anything to do with his hitting, so its not relevant. If you understood my case for Maz, this would be obvious, but I have no idea how to explain it to you until you finish 2nd grade at least.
Is there any chance we could put Dallas on waivers? Or trade both him and skin for a real expert?
You'd get something for us, anyway. I tried to trade you and 1970's and all I was offered in return was some used Kleenex.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1970s said:
When I tried to trade you to the mods, they only offered me used toilet paper from a fried beans and sauerkraut dinner. I thought about the offer, and then asked them to throw in some Barney CD's, and then we made the deal.
When you tried to trade me to the mods? If you ever have a coherent thought it will die of loneliness. At least your spelling is better than moron #2's.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
C'mon that was a cheap shot about my spelling. And BTW- when I accidentally used your instead of you're, that's
not a spelling error.
But at any rate, just happy to do my own spelling and typing unlike you having the advantage of a caregiver doing
it for you.
@Darin said:
C'mon that was a cheap shot about my spelling. And BTW- when I accidentally used your instead of you're, that's
not a spelling error.
Well, yeah, it is, but what made it funny is that you misspelled it in the act of calling someone else an idiot. When you misspelled "they're" in your very next post, it was the timing that was funny.
But, in all seriousness, I can either laugh at your posts and moron #1's posts or I can just ignore them; it's not like there's anything worthwhile in any of them. Skin posted some really good stuff in this thread and the 47 other Brett/Schmidt threads but I think it all flew right over both of your heads. You can learn a lot from skin - I have - but you have to be open to having your preconceived notions challenged, you have to actually read what he posts, and you have to ask about the parts you don't understand. Try it and you have my respect; continue on as you have been and I will just keep laughing. Makes no difference to me, but maybe it does to you.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I just found the definitive answer to this great debate though.
Schmidt's mustache puts him over the top. it is clear George could never have grown one so thick and luscious. Herein is the real reason Schmidt was the better fielder. Mike could save little bits of food in his mustache, and when he grew a bit weary in the field, have a little snack to add some pep to his step and throwing arm. george did not have that option.
@perkdog said:
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.
He is still on mine, it’s all good. Skin is still my favorite all time poster though 😂
Thanks Perk. And don't worry, Darin initially claimed that "driving in runs is all that mattered." So by you clearly pointing out the above, you destroyed his entire stance in one paragraph, with two basic facts.
1970's claimed that post season is all that matters...and they each one won WS, lol, with Schmidt winning the lone head to head.
@Darin said:
C'mon that was a cheap shot about my spelling. And BTW- when I accidentally used your instead of you're, that's
not a spelling error.
Well, yeah, it is, but what made it funny is that you misspelled it in the act of calling someone else an idiot. When you misspelled "they're" in your very next post, it was the timing that was funny.
But, in all seriousness, I can either laugh at your posts and moron #1's posts or I can just ignore them; it's not like there's anything worthwhile in any of them. Skin posted some really good stuff in this thread and the 47 other Brett/Schmidt threads but I think it all flew right over both of your heads. You can learn a lot from skin - I have - but you have to be open to having your preconceived notions challenged, you have to actually read what he posts, and you have to ask about the parts you don't understand. Try it and you have my respect; continue on as you have been and I will just keep laughing. Makes no difference to me, but maybe it does to you.
Thanks Dallas. Getting someone to change a preconceived notion is nearly impossible. Overcoming bias, impossible. ...but I sure do have fun exposing it, lol.
Stevek was correct, checkmate occured a few times...and when they flipped the board over and pretended it didn't occur...we kept playing, and winning, lol. What is better than beating fools like 1970s and darin in a debate? Beating them three times.
As for Eddie Gaedel?? According to 1970s and darin, they promote Roberto Hernandez as the best hitter in MLB history since he has a lifetime .500 batting average. Terry Forester is who they have as their second best hitter of all time because he has a lifetime .397 batting average.
Also, 1970s since you claim you know who is a clutch post season player and who isn't, I would like for you to tell me which players are going to crap their pants and produce significantly worse this coming post season, and which players are going to produce significantly better this next post season. It should be easy, shouldn't it ................and then tell me again how many rings George Brett and Mike Schmidt each have, and who has won MORE WS MVPS?? LMAO
If winning the World Series is the ultimate team goal, then isn't winning the World Series MVP the most important, all trumping, unsurpassed, individual heroic accomplishment?? You lose by your own standards, again.
Darrin, you are wrong on Brett being better 75% of the time. The reality is, that vs RH, they produced equally for appx the first 7,000 plate appearances, and then Brett just edges him for the final 5-10 percent or so. Dallas can do the exact math. So you are off by about 65% and Dallas can give exact figure. Also, that ten percent is waaaay more than made up vs LH....because in total Schmidt was vastly superior hitter. A third grader could see that, so maybe you will understand it next year after some summer growth.
@1970s said:
Fielding at 3B - Draw Schmidt .955 to Brett .951
So help me, no matter how many times you post this it still makes me laugh.
I don't recall anyone talking about it during his lengthy career, but you appear to be saying that Placido Polanco is the greatest fielding third baseman in history. Not only that, he's also the greatest fielding second baseman in history. You'd think more people would be talking about that, but maybe it's just because you haven't explained it to them yet. You should definitely start a thread explaining why Polanco was better then Brooks Robinson AND Bill Mazeroski (or Frank White, if you prefer). I promise I won't even post to it, I'll just enjoy it in all its glory.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Then who are the greatest fielding third baseman and second baseman in history and why? Where do your picks rank on the all-time fielding percentage lists at their positions?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I've been following this discussion. I don't have a dog in this fight. As I understand the debate, those who prefer Schmidt are idiots. Those who prefer Brett are morons. Or do I have that backwards. BTW I am not much on stats but I did watch a bit more baseball back then. I would put myself in the camp of the idiots, but not by a large margin.
@dallasactuary said:
Then who are the greatest fielding third baseman and second baseman in history and why? Where do your picks rank on the all-time fielding percentage lists at their positions?
I know you have me painted into a corner where the only way out is to make my ignorance clear to everyone. I prefer to avoid answering your question and instead make a "joke" that is humorous to nobody at all.
You get points for honesty; well said.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
LOL. This is what most news anchors try to do. They try to put words into other
people's mouths. LOL. Nice try grote15. Nice try. LOL.
Extreme people may say because you voted for Trump, it appears that you are a friend of the KKK also. This is what extremist do.
Calm down grote15. Take a deep breath, and relax.
Go open some 75 minis or something. LOL +
I have no idea how I factor into this debate but if it's on the opposite side of your misconceived notions, I'm pretty confident I'm on the right side of it, LOLOL..+++
Frankly, I have nothing to add here. Skin and dallas have schooled you again and again, but you don't seem to grasp it. I don't have time to explain it to you again, either.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
skin, I never said RBI's are all that matters.
And I would never say anyone with a .500 average with just a few at bats was the greatest hitter ever.
Now if he had at least 6K or 7K at bats then yes that would change and he would be. Maybe 5K because that
would be 2500 hits.
I've just always claimed that batting average does matter, unlike dallas who thinks its not relative at all.
If you have a player who hits .340, he already has a respectable OB%, but with a guy who hits .267, it
takes a lot of walks to get his OB% to a high level.
In other words, take care of your batting average, and all the other numbers dallas and you care about
take care of themselves.
I believe this is my 3,154 post. The same number of regular season hits George Brett had.
There's a lot of memories, but the one thing I still remember the most is the last 10 or so games of
the 1985 regular season. George Brett put the Royals on his back and carried them to a division title
over the California Angels. The Royals if I remember were a few games back with a week to play.
The one playoff game I remember most is the Game 3 against Toronto. Brett has said it is the best game
he's ever played.
This is from wikipedia:
In 1985, Brett had another brilliant season in which he helped propel the Royals to their second American League Championship. He batted .335 with 30 home runs and 112 RBI, finishing in the top 10 of the league in 10 different offensive categories. Defensively, he won his only Gold Glove, which broke Buddy Bell's six-year run of the award. In the final week of the regular season, he went 9-for-20 at the plate with 7 runs, 5 homers, and 9 RBI in six crucial games, five of them victories, as the Royals closed the gap and won the division title at the end. He was MVP of the 1985 playoffs against the Toronto Blue Jays, with an incredible Game 3. With KC down in the series two games to none, Brett went 4-for-4, homering in his first two at bats against Doyle Alexander, and doubled to the same spot in right field in his third at bat, leading the Royals' comeback. Brett then batted .370 in the World Series against the St. Louis Cardinals including a four-hit performance in Game 7. The Royals again rallied from a 3–1 deficit to become World Series Champions for the first time in Royals history.
LOL. This is what most news anchors try to do. They try to put words into other
people's mouths. LOL. Nice try grote15. Nice try. LOL.
Extreme people may say because you voted for Trump, it appears that you are a friend of the KKK also. This is what extremist do.
Calm down grote15. Take a deep breath, and relax.
Go open some 75 minis or something. LOL +
I have no idea how I factor into this debate but if it's on the opposite side of your misconceived notions, I'm pretty confident I'm on the right side of it, LOLOL..+++
Frankly, I have nothing to add here. Skin and dallas have schooled you again and again, but you don't seem to grasp it. I don't have time to explain it to you again, either.
Grote, correct....those two clowns are in over their heads. It is fun watching them get beat over and over and over and over.
Darin, not sure why you think Rich Dauer is a better hitter than Harmon Killebrew because he had a higher average and better contact rate....but it isn't surprising.
1970s is just completely lost. Who won more WS MVP's?
Funny, some of these guys like 1970s simply ignore the accurate measurements, so in that same vein, lets continue on that trend that they have created, similar to how Darins methods put Rich Dauer on par with Harmon killebrew due to superior batting average and contact rate.
Lets ignore the advanced measurements and see who is the best 3B then:
Chipper Jones .303/.401/.529
George Brett...305/.369/.487
Hmmm....is that even close?
Chipper Jones 1,619 runs and 1,623 RBI....10,614 plate appearances
George Brett 1,583 runs and 1,596 RBI....11,625 plate appearances
Hmmm....not even close again
Chipper Jones .954 fielding percentage in 17,105 innings at 3B
George Brett .951 fielding percentage in 14, 582 innings at 3B
For the idiot 1970s, George Brett had appx 32% of his innings on grass fields....and Chipper had about 88% ON GRASS FIELDS
Massive difference. Massive. Especially by 1970s very own artificial turf criteria. LMAO
That would make Chipper far greater 3B than Brett by your own criteria. The only thing that can change Brett over Chipper are the advanced metrics...the very same ones that Schmidt beats Brett in.
So either Chipper is the greatest third baseman, or Schmidt>Brett>Chipper.
Oh, and Darin, your criteria puts Wade Boggs light years ahead of George Brett due to .328 career average.
Oh, and since innings at 3B don't matter, add Miguel Cabrerra as another guy who dwarfs Brett. .316/.395/.551
Brett keeps dropping down on that all time list based on your guys criteria.
@1970s said:
But Mike Schmidt walked more, so Schmidt is better. LOL+
Sa.
Funny, some of these guys like 1970s simply ignore the accurate measurements, so in that same vein, lets continue on that trend that they have created, similar to how Darins methods put Rich Dauer on par with Harmon killebrew due to superior batting average and contact rate.
Lets ignore the advanced measurements and see who is the best 3B then:
Chipper Jones .303/.401/.529
George Brett...305/.369/.487
Hmmm....is that even close?
Chipper Jones 1,619 runs and 1,623 RBI....10,614 plate appearances
George Brett 1,583 runs and 1,596 RBI....11,625 plate appearances
Hmmm....not even close again
Chipper Jones .954 fielding percentage in 17,105 innings at 3B
George Brett .951 fielding percentage in 14, 582 innings at 3B
For the idiot 1970s, George Brett had appx 32% of his innings on grass fields....and Chipper had about 88% ON GRASS FIELDS
Massive difference. Massive. Especially by 1970s very own artificial turf criteria. LMAO
That would make Chipper far greater 3B than Brett by your own criteria. The only thing that can change Brett over Chipper are the advanced metrics...the very same ones that Schmidt beats Brett in.
So either Chipper is the greatest third baseman, or Schmidt>Brett>Chipper.
Oh, and Darin, your criteria puts Wade Boggs light years ahead of George Brett due to .328 career average.
Oh, and Brooks Robinson .971 Fielding Percentage 99% games on grass. Two WS rings. One WS MVP.
Oh, and since innings at 3B don't matter, add Miguel Cabrerra as another guy who dwarfs Brett. .316/.395/.551
Brett keeps dropping down on that all time list based on your guys criteria.
@1970s said:
But Mike Schmidt walked more, so Schmidt is better. LOL+
Sa.
Funny, some of these guys like 1970s simply ignore the accurate measurements, so in that same vein, lets continue on that trend that they have created, similar to how Darins methods put Rich Dauer on par with Harmon killebrew due to superior batting average and contact rate.
Lets ignore the advanced measurements and see who is the best 3B then:
Chipper Jones .303/.401/.529
George Brett...305/.369/.487
Hmmm....is that even close?
Chipper Jones 1,619 runs and 1,623 RBI....10,614 plate appearances
George Brett 1,583 runs and 1,596 RBI....11,625 plate appearances
Hmmm....not even close again
Chipper Jones .954 fielding percentage in 17,105 innings at 3B
George Brett .951 fielding percentage in 14, 582 innings at 3B
For the idiot 1970s, George Brett had appx 32% of his innings on grass fields....and Chipper had about 88% ON GRASS FIELDS
Massive difference. Massive. Especially by 1970s very own artificial turf criteria. LMAO
That would make Chipper far greater 3B than Brett by your own criteria. The only thing that can change Brett over Chipper are the advanced metrics...the very same ones that Schmidt beats Brett in.
So either Chipper is the greatest third baseman, or Schmidt>Brett>Chipper.
Oh, and Darin, your criteria puts Wade Boggs light years ahead of George Brett due to .328 career average.
Oh, and Brooks Robinson .971 Fielding Percentage 99% games on grass. Two WS rings. One WS MVP.
Oh, and since innings at 3B don't matter, add Miguel Cabrerra as another guy who dwarfs Brett. .316/.395/.551
Brett keeps dropping down on that all time list based on your guys criteria.
Period. Checkmate. Again.
I am happy to see that Chipper is getting some mention here.
Perhaps 95% of baseball fans and 100% of baseball fans that are not Royals followers know Schmidt or Mathews was the best all time at 3rd base.
Since my guy Killebrew, didn't play enough at 3rd to be in the discussion, I don't really care more for one of the other guys over another.
By the way, offensively Killebrew is comparable, in some important numbers to Mathews, and would be #1 in HR per AB in this group.
I would say that Brett has a very hard time achieving anything above number 5. You could conceivably get him to #3 if you eliminate Schmidt and Mathews because of a lower BA, but then Boggs/Jones are better.
Jones has some points in his favor that seem to be being ignored;
Highest all-time OPS (kind of by a lot) over Schmidt and Mathews,
SLG also #1 all time over Schmidt but it's very close, then Mathews.
Second all time in OBP behind Boggs.
BA, Jones #9 all time, about equal to Brett.
In offensive WAR Mathews is #1 followed by Schmidt and Jones and then George.
WAR position players #1 Schmidt, Mathews, Boggs then Brett and Jones.
Seems to me you have two ways to go here;
Old school ( I am in this group here) where you look at the guy at 3rd as a slugger. Jones and Schmidt have the highest SLG with Mathews being the only other guy over .500. Brett barely makes the top 10!
HR per at bat Schmidt is #1 in the group 1 HR per 15.24 AB, Mathews #2 at 1 per 16.67 then Jones at 19.20. Brett is at 1 HR per 32.65 AB
If you want to go with the notion that BA is more important, Boggs is your clear leader in both BA and OBP. Brett is #6 on the all time list.
Brett did have the most doubles and triples in the group, but not enough to overcome his HR per AB futility.
I am looking at the 8,000-10,000 AB regular season, not the 160-180 post season AB.
Fielding is tougher to judge. Fld% Boggs .962, Mathews .956, Schmidt .955, Jones .954 then Brett at .951. I trust this more than any other number to compare them to. Looks to me like they were all within 1 bad throw or fumbled ball per 100 chances. Getting into who played more on grass vs turf would only come into play if the players being discussed were virtually equal in every other imaginable area.......and they're not.
After reading everyone's opinions and doing my own unbiased research, my rankings would be;
1 Schmidt
2 Mathews (either of these guys could be #1 and I wouldn't argue)
3 Jones (I can't ignore his OPS and SLG ranking)
4 Boggs (Best fielder and highest BA of the group)
5 Brett
The thing I am wondering most is, what am I missing about Chipper that has excluded him from the discussion?
He was just as good as Brett as far as being a "hitter" and FAR superior to George as a "slugger" scored and drove in more runs too.
In fact he has a pretty big lead in OPS over everyone.
Care to get off the never ending Schmidt/Brett argument?
Chipper Jones; why is he not (more) in the discussion?
Skin.....dallas?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Just for the sake of posterity, I'm not sure what my method is, but I'm pretty
certain whatever it is it doesn't put Rich Dauer on par with Harmon Killebrew.
But I'm done with the argument anyway. I do know Bretts' teams won 6 division titles
and Schmidt's only won 5. So the guy in Philly wasn't exactly Superman.
@JoeBanzai said:
Chipper Jones; why is he not (more) in the discussion?
Skin.....dallas?
Absolutely, Jones belongs in the discussion if the discussion is who belongs in the top 3 or top 5; I don't think he belongs in a GOAT discussion.
My thoughts on Chipper:
As a hitter, he's up in top 3 territory; I think Schmidt is a clear #1, although not by miles, and Mathews, Brett, Boggs and Jones are the next four. Depending on how you weight peak and career value, and how you define "peak", you can get those four in pretty much any order. Jones does better the higher you weight career value; his peak isn't as impressive (relative to the other three; it's very impressive in any other context).
As a fielder, Jones was a great hitter. This is where he struggles to get into the conversation. I'm fairly comfortable with Schmidt, Mathews, Brett - in that order - as the top 3, and Boggs, Santo and Jones (in some order) as the next three. Personally, I rank these three as Boggs, Jones, Santo, but they're close enough that I don't think any order is objectively wrong.
If you define everything in a way that favors Jones as much as possible I think you can get him to #2, but I don't agree with several of the definitions that get him that high. I have him at #5, but I do think reasonable cases could be made that he's anywhere between #3 and #6.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@JoeBanzai said:
Chipper Jones; why is he not (more) in the discussion?
Skin.....dallas?
Absolutely, Jones belongs in the discussion if the discussion is who belongs in the top 3 or top 5; I don't think he belongs in a GOAT discussion.
My thoughts on Chipper:
As a hitter, he's up in top 3 territory; I think Schmidt is a clear #1, although not by miles, and Mathews, Brett, Boggs and Jones are the next four. Depending on how you weight peak and career value, and how you define "peak", you can get those four in pretty much any order. Jones does better the higher you weight career value; his peak isn't as impressive (relative to the other three; it's very impressive in any other context).
As a fielder, Jones was a great hitter. This is where he struggles to get into the conversation. I'm fairly comfortable with Schmidt, Mathews, Brett - in that order - as the top 3, and Boggs, Santo and Jones (in some order) as the next three. Personally, I rank these three as Boggs, Jones, Santo, but they're close enough that I don't think any order is objectively wrong.
If you define everything in a way that favors Jones as much as possible I think you can get him to #2, but I don't agree with several of the definitions that get him that high. I have him at #5, but I do think reasonable cases could be made that he's anywhere between #3 and #6.
Excellent!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
finally wade boggs gets a mention. very underrated player. had he not gotten such a late start, his career may have looked even better. possibly the greatest offensive player of the 80's.
Boggs didn't become a full time guy until 1983 even though he played in 100+ games the year before.
Mattinly was probably better for 2-3 years but dropped off. Back injury?
87-89 Boggs was certainly one of the best if not THE best. Hard for me to understand why Wade didn't win MVP in 87 and 88 and possibly 89, could have won in 86 as well.
I like power hitters over guys like Boggs as a rule, but Boggs was VERY good 1986 -1989 if you look at OPS and WAR. I don't usually count pitchers in MVP they have Cy Young award.
Puckett never won a MVP either and could have grabbed a couple. Canseco winning over Boggs/Puckett in 1988 was a joke. 40/40 was nice, but either Kirby or Wade would have been better choices.
Boggs has a similarity to Killebrew that it seemed that someone had a "special" year and got recognized even though they weren't any better over the course of the several year time span.
My vote might have to go to Puckett, but Boggs was right there for (one of the) best hitter of the 1980's.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
you are correct joe about boggs deserving a few MVP awards in the 80's. such a great player. and under appreciated. here are a few boggs tid bits:
from June 85 to june 86, a 162 game span, he hit .401
from 83-89, he led all players in times on base
for his first 10 season, he led all of baseball in IBB
led AL in IBB from 87-92
in 1985 he played 161 games. he reached base in 152 of them. a record
Boggs reached base safely in 85.2 percent of all games he played
Had at least 8 WAR every season from 85-89. he recieved 0 first place MVP votes in those years.
tony gwynn played 2440 games, boggs played 2439: boggs reached base 490 more times than gwynn.
My step-son was a huge Gwynn fan, I thought Boggs was better. Numbers say they were pretty equal.
For a "singles" hitter he had an impressive SLG. It did drop in his later years while Gwynn's actually got better.
I just noticed his IBB numbers. Impressive.
Boggs got a lot of criticism, unfairly I thought, for an affair he had (I think) and even for eating chicken.
Playing in Fenway prolly screwed him, even though like Williams he was left handed.
Not sure if he irritated the sportswriters (Ted Williams had some problems there too!), but he sure didn't get the credit he deserved. Puckett either. Kirby was certainly what made the Twins champions in 87 and again in 91. The rest of the team just wasn't that good.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I would say boggs was more than a singles hitter though, he did have 757 XBH and was the most feared hitter of the 80's, at least according to IBB.
I also think Boggs was a better player than gwynn. He greatly outpaced gwynn in WAR, and other than BA, was better than tony in other areas. Tony had over 300 steals, but his high caught stealing rate makes it a net negative. Boggs also played a more important defensive position.
@craig44 said:
I would say boggs was more than a singles hitter though, he did have 757 XBH and was the most feared hitter of the 80's, at least according to IBB.
I also think Boggs was a better player than gwynn. He greatly outpaced gwynn in WAR, and other than BA, was better than tony in other areas. Tony had over 300 steals, but his high caught stealing rate makes it a net negative. Boggs also played a more important defensive position.
@craig44 said:
I would say boggs was more than a singles hitter though, he did have 757 XBH and was the most feared hitter of the 80's, at least according to IBB.
I also think Boggs was a better player than gwynn. He greatly outpaced gwynn in WAR, and other than BA, was better than tony in other areas. Tony had over 300 steals, but his high caught stealing rate makes it a net negative. Boggs also played a more important defensive position.
I would consider them both singles hitters. Gwynn had a little higher SLG.
I agree with the rest of your post completely!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Darin said:
Just for the sake of posterity, I'm not sure what my method is, but I'm pretty
certain whatever it is it doesn't put Rich Dauer on par with Harmon Killebrew.
But I'm done with the argument anyway. I do know Bretts' teams won 6 division titles
and Schmidt's only won 5. So the guy in Philly wasn't exactly Superman.
As you should leave the debate....as you were soundly beaten. By your methods, Brett just keeps falling down lower on the all-time third base list...farther and farther behind Schmidt and all the others.
The Royals should be thankful for playing the hapless AL West. In fact, both years they got to the WS, there were two AL East teams better than them. One you get in the playoffs, anything can happen...and in their only win they won because of a blind umpire at first base.
The worst was their 1984 division win, where there were FIVE teams in the East with better records.
In 1978 there were three teams in the East with better records.
1976 and 77 they earned those.
Phils may not be much better because the Dodgers and Reds both played in the West and owned the mid-late 70's.
Either way, Brett was fortunate enough to get to the playoffs as much as he did because he played in a crap division.
Its all moot in the debate anyway, because Scmidt was superior, as were other 3B.
joebanzi, you should add Killebrew to the 3B list, because Brett didn't play third base as much as Schmidt and that doesn't seem to factor into their decision making in declaring Brett a better third baseman. So in that vein, Killebrew is included too
joebanzi, you should add Killebrew to the 3B list, because Brett didn't play third base as much as Schmidt and that doesn't seem to factor into their decision making in declaring Brett a better third baseman. So in that vein, Killebrew is included too
Stop teasing me! Had Killebrew been put at 3B and left there, this debate would be much different.
Killebrew had 2 serious injuries at 1B, without missing those games he would have certainly had 600+ home runs!
GOAT utility player Harmon Killebrew!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Comments
Dallas and skin say all the time how RBI's are a poor metric for judging a player, yet somehow its the most
important thing in the Schmidt vs. Brett debate.
Just like how OB% is a great stat for judging ballplayers ability to get on base, except of course for
Bill Mazeroski, because for him the normal rules don't apply, according to our Dallas 'expert' on baseball
Is there any chance we could put Dallas on waivers? Or trade both him and skin for a real expert?
We are not the ones who brought up RBI, that was moron #1. This thread is just another example of us explaining why raw RBI totals are a poor metric for judging a player.
If my case for Maz being in the HOF had anything to do with his hitting, his OBP would of course be relevant. But my case doesn't have anything to do with his hitting, so its not relevant. If you understood my case for Maz, this would be obvious, but I have no idea how to explain it to you until you finish 2nd grade at least.
You'd get something for us, anyway. I tried to trade you and 1970's and all I was offered in return was some used Kleenex.
When you tried to trade me to the mods? If you ever have a coherent thought it will die of loneliness. At least your spelling is better than moron #2's.
don't make me post the lighten up francis pic
C'mon that was a cheap shot about my spelling. And BTW- when I accidentally used your instead of you're, that's
not a spelling error.
But at any rate, just happy to do my own spelling and typing unlike you having the advantage of a caregiver doing
it for you.
Well, yeah, it is, but what made it funny is that you misspelled it in the act of calling someone else an idiot. When you misspelled "they're" in your very next post, it was the timing that was funny.
But, in all seriousness, I can either laugh at your posts and moron #1's posts or I can just ignore them; it's not like there's anything worthwhile in any of them. Skin posted some really good stuff in this thread and the 47 other Brett/Schmidt threads but I think it all flew right over both of your heads. You can learn a lot from skin - I have - but you have to be open to having your preconceived notions challenged, you have to actually read what he posts, and you have to ask about the parts you don't understand. Try it and you have my respect; continue on as you have been and I will just keep laughing. Makes no difference to me, but maybe it does to you.
getting a little deep in here.
I just found the definitive answer to this great debate though.
Schmidt's mustache puts him over the top. it is clear George could never have grown one so thick and luscious. Herein is the real reason Schmidt was the better fielder. Mike could save little bits of food in his mustache, and when he grew a bit weary in the field, have a little snack to add some pep to his step and throwing arm. george did not have that option.
case closed.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Thanks Perk. And don't worry, Darin initially claimed that "driving in runs is all that mattered." So by you clearly pointing out the above, you destroyed his entire stance in one paragraph, with two basic facts.
1970's claimed that post season is all that matters...and they each one won WS, lol, with Schmidt winning the lone head to head.
Thanks Dallas. Getting someone to change a preconceived notion is nearly impossible. Overcoming bias, impossible. ...but I sure do have fun exposing it, lol.
Stevek was correct, checkmate occured a few times...and when they flipped the board over and pretended it didn't occur...we kept playing, and winning, lol. What is better than beating fools like 1970s and darin in a debate? Beating them three times.
As for Eddie Gaedel?? According to 1970s and darin, they promote Roberto Hernandez as the best hitter in MLB history since he has a lifetime .500 batting average. Terry Forester is who they have as their second best hitter of all time because he has a lifetime .397 batting average.
Also, 1970s since you claim you know who is a clutch post season player and who isn't, I would like for you to tell me which players are going to crap their pants and produce significantly worse this coming post season, and which players are going to produce significantly better this next post season. It should be easy, shouldn't it
................and then tell me again how many rings George Brett and Mike Schmidt each have, and who has won MORE WS MVPS?? LMAO
If winning the World Series is the ultimate team goal, then isn't winning the World Series MVP the most important, all trumping, unsurpassed, individual heroic accomplishment?? You lose by your own standards, again.
Darrin, you are wrong on Brett being better 75% of the time. The reality is, that vs RH, they produced equally for appx the first 7,000 plate appearances, and then Brett just edges him for the final 5-10 percent or so. Dallas can do the exact math. So you are off by about 65% and Dallas can give exact figure. Also, that ten percent is waaaay more than made up vs LH....because in total Schmidt was vastly superior hitter. A third grader could see that, so maybe you will understand it next year after some summer growth.
So, checkmate. Again.
So help me, no matter how many times you post this it still makes me laugh.
I don't recall anyone talking about it during his lengthy career, but you appear to be saying that Placido Polanco is the greatest fielding third baseman in history. Not only that, he's also the greatest fielding second baseman in history. You'd think more people would be talking about that, but maybe it's just because you haven't explained it to them yet. You should definitely start a thread explaining why Polanco was better then Brooks Robinson AND Bill Mazeroski (or Frank White, if you prefer). I promise I won't even post to it, I'll just enjoy it in all its glory.
Then who are the greatest fielding third baseman and second baseman in history and why? Where do your picks rank on the all-time fielding percentage lists at their positions?
I've been following this discussion. I don't have a dog in this fight. As I understand the debate, those who prefer Schmidt are idiots. Those who prefer Brett are morons. Or do I have that backwards. BTW I am not much on stats but I did watch a bit more baseball back then. I would put myself in the camp of the idiots, but not by a large margin.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
You get points for honesty; well said.
I have no idea how I factor into this debate but if it's on the opposite side of your misconceived notions, I'm pretty confident I'm on the right side of it, LOLOL..+++
Frankly, I have nothing to add here. Skin and dallas have schooled you again and again, but you don't seem to grasp it. I don't have time to explain it to you again, either.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
skin, I never said RBI's are all that matters.
And I would never say anyone with a .500 average with just a few at bats was the greatest hitter ever.
Now if he had at least 6K or 7K at bats then yes that would change and he would be. Maybe 5K because that
would be 2500 hits.
I've just always claimed that batting average does matter, unlike dallas who thinks its not relative at all.
If you have a player who hits .340, he already has a respectable OB%, but with a guy who hits .267, it
takes a lot of walks to get his OB% to a high level.
In other words, take care of your batting average, and all the other numbers dallas and you care about
take care of themselves.
I believe this is my 3,154 post. The same number of regular season hits George Brett had.
There's a lot of memories, but the one thing I still remember the most is the last 10 or so games of
the 1985 regular season. George Brett put the Royals on his back and carried them to a division title
over the California Angels. The Royals if I remember were a few games back with a week to play.
The one playoff game I remember most is the Game 3 against Toronto. Brett has said it is the best game
he's ever played.
This is from wikipedia:
In 1985, Brett had another brilliant season in which he helped propel the Royals to their second American League Championship. He batted .335 with 30 home runs and 112 RBI, finishing in the top 10 of the league in 10 different offensive categories. Defensively, he won his only Gold Glove, which broke Buddy Bell's six-year run of the award. In the final week of the regular season, he went 9-for-20 at the plate with 7 runs, 5 homers, and 9 RBI in six crucial games, five of them victories, as the Royals closed the gap and won the division title at the end. He was MVP of the 1985 playoffs against the Toronto Blue Jays, with an incredible Game 3. With KC down in the series two games to none, Brett went 4-for-4, homering in his first two at bats against Doyle Alexander, and doubled to the same spot in right field in his third at bat, leading the Royals' comeback. Brett then batted .370 in the World Series against the St. Louis Cardinals including a four-hit performance in Game 7. The Royals again rallied from a 3–1 deficit to become World Series Champions for the first time in Royals history.
Grote, correct....those two clowns are in over their heads. It is fun watching them get beat over and over and over and over.
Darin, not sure why you think Rich Dauer is a better hitter than Harmon Killebrew because he had a higher average and better contact rate....but it isn't surprising.
1970s is just completely lost. Who won more WS MVP's?
Going to have to insist at this point you stop putting words in my mouth.
I didn't mention Rich Dauer or Harmon Killebrew!
I’m waiting for Coin to change the title again, maybe a King Kong vs Godzilla next time?
Funny, some of these guys like 1970s simply ignore the accurate measurements, so in that same vein, lets continue on that trend that they have created, similar to how Darins methods put Rich Dauer on par with Harmon killebrew due to superior batting average and contact rate.
Lets ignore the advanced measurements and see who is the best 3B then:
Chipper Jones .303/.401/.529
George Brett...305/.369/.487
Hmmm....is that even close?
Chipper Jones 1,619 runs and 1,623 RBI....10,614 plate appearances
George Brett 1,583 runs and 1,596 RBI....11,625 plate appearances
Hmmm....not even close again
Chipper Jones .954 fielding percentage in 17,105 innings at 3B
George Brett .951 fielding percentage in 14, 582 innings at 3B
For the idiot 1970s, George Brett had appx 32% of his innings on grass fields....and Chipper had about 88% ON GRASS FIELDS
Massive difference. Massive. Especially by 1970s very own artificial turf criteria. LMAO
That would make Chipper far greater 3B than Brett by your own criteria. The only thing that can change Brett over Chipper are the advanced metrics...the very same ones that Schmidt beats Brett in.
So either Chipper is the greatest third baseman, or Schmidt>Brett>Chipper.
Oh, and Darin, your criteria puts Wade Boggs light years ahead of George Brett due to .328 career average.
Oh, and since innings at 3B don't matter, add Miguel Cabrerra as another guy who dwarfs Brett. .316/.395/.551
Brett keeps dropping down on that all time list based on your guys criteria.
Period. Checkmate. Again.
Latest thread title: Could Serena Williams beat Tom Brady at golf?
I dunno, but i think she could play left tackle for the Patriots and provide some good pass protection.
Funny, some of these guys like 1970s simply ignore the accurate measurements, so in that same vein, lets continue on that trend that they have created, similar to how Darins methods put Rich Dauer on par with Harmon killebrew due to superior batting average and contact rate.
Lets ignore the advanced measurements and see who is the best 3B then:
Chipper Jones .303/.401/.529
George Brett...305/.369/.487
Hmmm....is that even close?
Chipper Jones 1,619 runs and 1,623 RBI....10,614 plate appearances
George Brett 1,583 runs and 1,596 RBI....11,625 plate appearances
Hmmm....not even close again
Chipper Jones .954 fielding percentage in 17,105 innings at 3B
George Brett .951 fielding percentage in 14, 582 innings at 3B
For the idiot 1970s, George Brett had appx 32% of his innings on grass fields....and Chipper had about 88% ON GRASS FIELDS
Massive difference. Massive. Especially by 1970s very own artificial turf criteria. LMAO
That would make Chipper far greater 3B than Brett by your own criteria. The only thing that can change Brett over Chipper are the advanced metrics...the very same ones that Schmidt beats Brett in.
So either Chipper is the greatest third baseman, or Schmidt>Brett>Chipper.
Oh, and Darin, your criteria puts Wade Boggs light years ahead of George Brett due to .328 career average.
Oh, and Brooks Robinson .971 Fielding Percentage 99% games on grass. Two WS rings. One WS MVP.
Oh, and since innings at 3B don't matter, add Miguel Cabrerra as another guy who dwarfs Brett. .316/.395/.551
Brett keeps dropping down on that all time list based on your guys criteria.
Period. Checkmate. Again.
I don't play chess a lot, but once you say checkmate aren't you supposed to shut the hell up?
I am happy to see that Chipper is getting some mention here.
Perhaps 95% of baseball fans and 100% of baseball fans that are not Royals followers know Schmidt or Mathews was the best all time at 3rd base.
Since my guy Killebrew, didn't play enough at 3rd to be in the discussion, I don't really care more for one of the other guys over another.
By the way, offensively Killebrew is comparable, in some important numbers to Mathews, and would be #1 in HR per AB in this group.
I would say that Brett has a very hard time achieving anything above number 5. You could conceivably get him to #3 if you eliminate Schmidt and Mathews because of a lower BA, but then Boggs/Jones are better.
Jones has some points in his favor that seem to be being ignored;
Highest all-time OPS (kind of by a lot) over Schmidt and Mathews,
SLG also #1 all time over Schmidt but it's very close, then Mathews.
Second all time in OBP behind Boggs.
BA, Jones #9 all time, about equal to Brett.
In offensive WAR Mathews is #1 followed by Schmidt and Jones and then George.
WAR position players #1 Schmidt, Mathews, Boggs then Brett and Jones.
Seems to me you have two ways to go here;
Old school ( I am in this group here) where you look at the guy at 3rd as a slugger. Jones and Schmidt have the highest SLG with Mathews being the only other guy over .500. Brett barely makes the top 10!
HR per at bat Schmidt is #1 in the group 1 HR per 15.24 AB, Mathews #2 at 1 per 16.67 then Jones at 19.20. Brett is at 1 HR per 32.65 AB
If you want to go with the notion that BA is more important, Boggs is your clear leader in both BA and OBP. Brett is #6 on the all time list.
Brett did have the most doubles and triples in the group, but not enough to overcome his HR per AB futility.
I am looking at the 8,000-10,000 AB regular season, not the 160-180 post season AB.
Fielding is tougher to judge. Fld% Boggs .962, Mathews .956, Schmidt .955, Jones .954 then Brett at .951. I trust this more than any other number to compare them to. Looks to me like they were all within 1 bad throw or fumbled ball per 100 chances. Getting into who played more on grass vs turf would only come into play if the players being discussed were virtually equal in every other imaginable area.......and they're not.
After reading everyone's opinions and doing my own unbiased research, my rankings would be;
1 Schmidt
2 Mathews (either of these guys could be #1 and I wouldn't argue)
3 Jones (I can't ignore his OPS and SLG ranking)
4 Boggs (Best fielder and highest BA of the group)
5 Brett
The thing I am wondering most is, what am I missing about Chipper that has excluded him from the discussion?
He was just as good as Brett as far as being a "hitter" and FAR superior to George as a "slugger" scored and drove in more runs too.
In fact he has a pretty big lead in OPS over everyone.
Care to get off the never ending Schmidt/Brett argument?
Chipper Jones; why is he not (more) in the discussion?
Skin.....dallas?
Just for the sake of posterity, I'm not sure what my method is, but I'm pretty
certain whatever it is it doesn't put Rich Dauer on par with Harmon Killebrew.
But I'm done with the argument anyway. I do know Bretts' teams won 6 division titles
and Schmidt's only won 5. So the guy in Philly wasn't exactly Superman.
Absolutely, Jones belongs in the discussion if the discussion is who belongs in the top 3 or top 5; I don't think he belongs in a GOAT discussion.
My thoughts on Chipper:
As a hitter, he's up in top 3 territory; I think Schmidt is a clear #1, although not by miles, and Mathews, Brett, Boggs and Jones are the next four. Depending on how you weight peak and career value, and how you define "peak", you can get those four in pretty much any order. Jones does better the higher you weight career value; his peak isn't as impressive (relative to the other three; it's very impressive in any other context).
As a fielder, Jones was a great hitter. This is where he struggles to get into the conversation. I'm fairly comfortable with Schmidt, Mathews, Brett - in that order - as the top 3, and Boggs, Santo and Jones (in some order) as the next three. Personally, I rank these three as Boggs, Jones, Santo, but they're close enough that I don't think any order is objectively wrong.
If you define everything in a way that favors Jones as much as possible I think you can get him to #2, but I don't agree with several of the definitions that get him that high. I have him at #5, but I do think reasonable cases could be made that he's anywhere between #3 and #6.
Excellent!
finally wade boggs gets a mention. very underrated player. had he not gotten such a late start, his career may have looked even better. possibly the greatest offensive player of the 80's.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Boggs didn't become a full time guy until 1983 even though he played in 100+ games the year before.
Mattinly was probably better for 2-3 years but dropped off. Back injury?
87-89 Boggs was certainly one of the best if not THE best. Hard for me to understand why Wade didn't win MVP in 87 and 88 and possibly 89, could have won in 86 as well.
I like power hitters over guys like Boggs as a rule, but Boggs was VERY good 1986 -1989 if you look at OPS and WAR. I don't usually count pitchers in MVP they have Cy Young award.
Puckett never won a MVP either and could have grabbed a couple. Canseco winning over Boggs/Puckett in 1988 was a joke. 40/40 was nice, but either Kirby or Wade would have been better choices.
Boggs has a similarity to Killebrew that it seemed that someone had a "special" year and got recognized even though they weren't any better over the course of the several year time span.
My vote might have to go to Puckett, but Boggs was right there for (one of the) best hitter of the 1980's.
Eck over Puckett in 1992 OMG!
you are correct joe about boggs deserving a few MVP awards in the 80's. such a great player. and under appreciated. here are a few boggs tid bits:
from June 85 to june 86, a 162 game span, he hit .401
from 83-89, he led all players in times on base
for his first 10 season, he led all of baseball in IBB
led AL in IBB from 87-92
in 1985 he played 161 games. he reached base in 152 of them. a record
Boggs reached base safely in 85.2 percent of all games he played
Had at least 8 WAR every season from 85-89. he recieved 0 first place MVP votes in those years.
tony gwynn played 2440 games, boggs played 2439: boggs reached base 490 more times than gwynn.
food for thought.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
My step-son was a huge Gwynn fan, I thought Boggs was better. Numbers say they were pretty equal.
For a "singles" hitter he had an impressive SLG. It did drop in his later years while Gwynn's actually got better.
I just noticed his IBB numbers. Impressive.
Boggs got a lot of criticism, unfairly I thought, for an affair he had (I think) and even for eating chicken.
Playing in Fenway prolly screwed him, even though like Williams he was left handed.
Not sure if he irritated the sportswriters (Ted Williams had some problems there too!), but he sure didn't get the credit he deserved. Puckett either. Kirby was certainly what made the Twins champions in 87 and again in 91. The rest of the team just wasn't that good.
I would say boggs was more than a singles hitter though, he did have 757 XBH and was the most feared hitter of the 80's, at least according to IBB.
I also think Boggs was a better player than gwynn. He greatly outpaced gwynn in WAR, and other than BA, was better than tony in other areas. Tony had over 300 steals, but his high caught stealing rate makes it a net negative. Boggs also played a more important defensive position.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
in honor of Tony !
I would consider them both singles hitters. Gwynn had a little higher SLG.
I agree with the rest of your post completely!
As you should leave the debate....as you were soundly beaten. By your methods, Brett just keeps falling down lower on the all-time third base list...farther and farther behind Schmidt and all the others.
The Royals should be thankful for playing the hapless AL West. In fact, both years they got to the WS, there were two AL East teams better than them. One you get in the playoffs, anything can happen...and in their only win they won because of a blind umpire at first base.
The worst was their 1984 division win, where there were FIVE teams in the East with better records.
In 1978 there were three teams in the East with better records.
1976 and 77 they earned those.
Phils may not be much better because the Dodgers and Reds both played in the West and owned the mid-late 70's.
Either way, Brett was fortunate enough to get to the playoffs as much as he did because he played in a crap division.
Its all moot in the debate anyway, because Scmidt was superior, as were other 3B.
joebanzi, you should add Killebrew to the 3B list, because Brett didn't play third base as much as Schmidt and that doesn't seem to factor into their decision making in declaring Brett a better third baseman. So in that vein, Killebrew is included too
Stop teasing me! Had Killebrew been put at 3B and left there, this debate would be much different.
Killebrew had 2 serious injuries at 1B, without missing those games he would have certainly had 600+ home runs!
GOAT utility player Harmon Killebrew!
Now we have made it to the GOAT utility player.
I think I can find a vid of the GOAT groundskeeper.
GOAT Herbie Redmond!
How was he on Tuesday afternoon games in July following a National Holiday, when it was above 88 degrees?