Options
When will the next great sports forum debate happen?
doubledragon
Posts: 22,937 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
So, what constitutes a great sports debate? A great sports debate happens when two or more parties have differing opinions on a sports topic, and neither side will let go of their views and insist that their opinion is the correct one. I haven't been here that long, but I've searched the archives and over the years their have been some good debates. Schmidt vs Brett was a doozie! Anyway, when do you think we'll have another really good debate thread, and by that I mean a thread that stretches on for 10 or more pages, and what do you think the debate will be about?
1
Comments
When you make it happen.
Just for the record, Schmidt was better.
Yes, a good sports debate is always fun to watch. The Schmidt vs Brett debate was a classic, like watching two hungry people struggling over the last pork chop!
Ali and Brett vs. Tyson and Schmidt...... who wins in a fight?
Ali, Brett, Tyson and Schmidt vs. a Sasquatch...... who wins? And Brett and Schmidt can use their bats.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
@doubledragon you must will it into existence.
I think the fight would end quickly after Brett crapped his pants.
I think the fight would end quickly after Schmidt throws three punches and whiffs every time,
then its lights out Schmitty because Brett never swung and missed three times in a row in his life.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
Just for the record, Schmidt was better.
This is not a valid debate. Schmidt played fair and square. Brett was among the cheaters.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Don't know if he ever swung and missed three times in a row, but I do know that when Schmidt and Brett stepped up to the plate, that pitchers got Brett out more frequently than they did Schmidt. So maybe in the analogy one can say that Brett was 'knocked out' more often, and would thus lose more fights.
And since Schmidt 'slugged' at a higher percentage than Brett, that Schmidt would have more 'knock outs'.
I expect around February 2022 when Brady wins his 8th Super Bowl.
Eric
Erikthredd’s MJ Collection: https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/publishedset/395035
Erikthredd’s Nike Air Jordan Collection: https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/basketball/key-card-sets/nike-poster-cards-michael-jordan-1985-1992/alltimeset/408486
You obviously didn't glance over the postseason stats.
And your statement about pitchers getting Brett out more than Schmidt is not correct. Pitchers got Schmidt out more than they got Brett out. Schmidt had 1883 lifetime K's and 1507 lifetime walks. Brett had 908 lifetime K's and 1096 lifetime walks. Pitchers walked Brett more than they struck him out. Pitchers struck out Schmidt more than they walked him.
Infielders and outfielders got Brett out more because he was a better contact hitter than Schmidt. He put the ball in play more. Pitchers couldn't fool him the way they fooled Schmidt. Schmidt struck out twice as many times in his career than Brett did, so the accurate statement is that if a pitcher needed a strikeout and they had a choice between Schmidt or Brett, we all know the obvious answer. Schmidt had plenty more swings and misses in his career, and pitchers got him out much more than they got out Brett. Pitchers got him out twice as much. Just look at the K's.
If you look at stats at the end of a game, there is a PO next to a fielder. That is called a put out. A fielder is credited with a putout when he is the fielder who physically records the act of completing an out,.
He may have been, but neither Schmidt nor Brett was better than my greatest 3rd baseman of all time.
Don't forget, you'd have to give Sasquatch a tag team partner like Mike Trout. While Schmidt would be crapping the bed, the other 3 would be taking turns pummeling Sasquatch. He'd be trying to tag Mike Trout into the fight, and like any other critical situation, Trout would stand there and watch that big paw go by 3 times before he'd turn away with that stupid look on his face.
Pitchers job is to produce a plate appearance that end up in an out for the batter. If they do it via a strikeout or routine ground out, it still counts the same, aside from the times where the batted ball out advances a baserunner(which is known for both players), and when those are added into the mix, Schmidt is still much better hitter than Brett.
So the fact STILL stands. when each man stepped up to the plate, George Brett is the one that was easier to get out.
As for clutch stats, if you want to put that much emphasis on the fielding part, then realize that Brett's fielding cost his team an ALCS. His fielding in the post season was as bad as his hitting was good.
Can't have it both ways. If the fielding is as important as you say, then Brett actually choked in the playoffs.
However, the notion for clutch for baseball hitters is more of random hot/cold streaks happening at the right/wrong time like they do all year. It is not like a basketball player or QB who has less variance in day to day performances. The very best hitter in baseball can have zero impact with his bat in any give game, and it happens a lot.
If you are looking at old school performances and 'job' of driving in runs(like you mentioned with Santo), then Brett had just 'ONE' more RBI than Schmidt, and it took him 1,100 more plate appearances to do so....so it is pretty clear Schmidt was better at generating runs....regardless if Brett grounded out more often.
It does not count the same. A strikeout has more value than when a batter makes contact with a ball. Please say you were just kidding, because this made me laugh out loud.
Huh? If each result in an out with no base runner advance, then they are EXACTLY the same. I believe I stated that clearly above, When you DO add those batted ball out advancements by Brett(and don't forget Schmidt also had batted ball out advancements), and give fully due credit to that baserunner advancement, Schmidt STILl is much better hitter than Brett.
In the end, you see Schmidt generated runs with his bat better than Brett...so what you are saying above with contact basically comes down to that...and it took Brett 1,100 more plate appearances to generate just one more RBI than Schmidt. What else do you have?? So clearly those tap outs to the second basement by Brett weren't knocking in too many runs
So while Brett was tapping out to the second baseman more often, he was making key errors in the playoffs and costing his team chances to go to the World Series.
Just for the record, Schmidt was better.
If you look at the RBI and see that Brett only managed one more RBI in 1,100 plate appearances, that should put to rest ANY old school stat analysis between the two hitters, as Schmidt was generating more runs, and thus ultimately irrelevant if he was striking out more and Brett had more singles and more tap outs to the second baseman.
However, you do have to account for how many baserunners they had to work with.
For their careers, Brett came up to the plate 616 more times with baserunners on board than Schmidt did. In all those extra times Brett had to produce runs, he only managed one more RBI than Schmidt. That puts the nail into any old school analysis between the two hitters.
When you advance the study it a little further past old school and look at how many times each reached base safely, you see that Schmidt actually reached based safety MORE than Brett did...and scored runs at a better rate, then the argument is lost completely and given to Schmidt.
Then of course it always falls to the clutch aspect. But somehow, people conveniently forget Brett's key errors in the playoffs that cost his team chances to go to the World Series. The miscues may not have been on the scale of Bill Buckner, but they are in the team photo.
But again, in the end, if looking at old School clutch, then the one time they did meet in the World Series, Schmidt was the one who was the World Series MVP. In Brett's lone World Series victory, I stress lone, because if he was as clutch as everyone says, then shouldn't he have more than one?? The answer is yes he should, but if he fielded better, he may have. I digress. In Brett's lone world series win, it was Bret who was the MVP, and no, that isn't a misspelling. It was Bret Saberhagen who was the team's MVP in the World Series.
So in the end, Schmidt is better any way you slice it, old school, new school, winning, etc..
PS, Brett did rest more often vs left handed pitchers too. Based on how many times his team faced left handers, Brett sat about 10% more times vs LH than compared to someone who did NOT take any platoon advantage. So if we are getting into the nitty gritty, that slight platoon sitting out helped Brett keep his percentages a tad higher. To me, sitting against a tough lefty doesn't scream 'clutch' or 'gamer'.
Schmidt's fielding was spectacular. One thing that may be missing from the overall conversation is his ability to field the bunt. Over the years, Schmidt would field bunts to perfection, easily throwing out the batter at first. Sometimes even throwing out the lead runner at second.
Any batter attempting a drag bunt against Mike Schmidt, often found themselves trotting back to the dugout right after the play.
..
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
Darin, Brett had 2,000 more at bats. Doesn't that really explain why he had more total bases?
The fielding of bunts, I'm not sure of the point. If they are sac bunts, that is one thing, but fielding bunts for hits is actually a difficult play for a third baseman.
You would have to see how many sac bunts Schmidt fielded compared to Brett. Are those easy plays to pad to fielding stats? Probably. Would be curious to see the amount though.
Brooks Robinson was better than both.
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
That you think what you posted here is meaningful evidence of who was the better hitter is so incredibly sad I don't know what to say. I suggest that you rewrite it, but substitute Ted Williams or Mickey Mantle for Schmidt. If that doesn't open your eyes, maybe once you've posted it someone else here will find the words to get through to you.
@Doubledragon 👀 It might not be the next "great" debate, but you just got something started. 🤔😂😂
Always much props to Brett. Elite HOFer in my book.
I've actually never even considered the sac bunt factor from pitchers for padding defensive stats. I am genuinely curious how much of it happened though. Remember, roughly half of someone's at bats occur with nobody on base, and I would figure that the pitcher has even less so since the worst hitters on the team are batting ahead of them.
I don't believe that the AL was void of their share of sac bunts though.
It is a simple solution to the question....just a matter of who wants to put in the leg work to count them all up
Well, if I couldn't have Ron Santo for my starting third baseman, and someone twisted my arm to choose either Schmidt or Brett for a team that had a good chance at making a postseason run, then the obvious person I choose after Ron Santo is George Brett. He gives me basically the same performance as Schmidt that year, and Schmidt gives me a postseason WPA of -0.29, while Brett gives me a postseason WPA of +1.40.
Win probability added is a sport statistic which attempts to measure a player's contribution to a win by figuring the factor by which each specific play made by that player has altered the outcome of a game.
So in the postseason Schmidt had a negative WPA or contribution to his team. While Brett had a very impressive contribution to his club.
Ron Santo never made it to the postseason. If he ever did, he would have been better than Brett or Schmidt.
.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
1.4 very impressive? So one win above a replacement level player is impressive?
Simply not enough. Even if you add the post season results as evidenced of clutch, it still does not come close to erasing the huge gape Schmidt has over Brett for their career...and in the end, they each only won one title, and Schmidt beat him head to head and was MVP. How clutch can he be if they only won one WS?? Obviously not clutch enough.
Again, any way you slice it....Schmidt triumphs.
For those of you who never had the pleasure of seeing the great Ron Santo play, here is a 1965 color broadcast of the Reds no hitting the Cubs at Wrigley field. The Reds have Rose, Perez in a 1-0 10 inning win where Maloney struck out a lot of Cubs hitters.
Does anyone have a link to that Brett vs Schmidt debate ? It would be interesting to read.
Would like to see if anyone discussed the great Hall of Famer Ron Santo in comparison to Brett or Schmidt.
We know Schmidt produced runs better than Brett. Any old school analysis simply fails when it goes back to that one fact; Schmidt drove in runs better and scored runs better than Brett. The debate simply ends there.
On a more deeper level, most people discount Schmidt's walks. A walk is simply worth about 2/3 the value of a single. Common sense should tell anyone that, especially since with nobody on base, a walk and a single have the exact same value, so right off the bat, half of Schmidt's walks are equal to Brett's singles, since about half at bats come with nobody on base.
You have to dig a little deeper to derive the rest of the value, and I will let common sense stand(in addition to the play by play data) that a walk is roughly 2/3 the value of a single overall.
If you are going to discount Schmidt's walks even more, then please remember the primary reason why he had so many walks is because he was so good at hitting home runs that pitchers simply didn't give him a chance to do that against them, so they nibbled and walked him, instead of giving up more home runs.
Without such treatment, Schmidt would be well into the deep 600's for career home runs, a great feat for that era and the fact that he 1,100 less plate appearances than Brett...and then the common fan wouldn't even be questioning why Schmidt is viewed as being so good, and better than Brett.> @Darin said:
Would that put Cal Ripken ahead of Brett as a hitter since he has more Total Bases than Brett?
We know Schmidt produced runs better than Brett. Any old school analysis simply fails when it goes back to that one fact; Schmidt drove in runs better and scored runs better than Brett. The debate simply ends there.
On a more deeper level, most people discount Schmidt's walks. A walk is simply worth about 2/3 the value of a single. Common sense should tell anyone that, especially since with nobody on base, a walk and a single have the exact same value, so right off the bat, half of Schmidt's walks are equal to Brett's singles, since about half at bats come with nobody on base.
You have to dig a little deeper to derive the rest of the value, and I will let common sense stand(in addition to the play by play data) that a walk is roughly 2/3 the value of a single overall.
If you are going to discount Schmidt's walks even more, then please remember the primary reason why he had so many walks is because he was so good at hitting home runs that pitchers simply didn't give him a chance to do that against them, so they nibbled and walked him, instead of giving up more home runs.
Without such treatment, Schmidt would be well into the deep 600's for career home runs, a great feat for that era and the fact that he 1,100 less plate appearances than Brett...and then the common fan wouldn't even be questioning why Schmidt is viewed as being so good, and better than Brett.
The Cliff's Notes version is basically 40+ pages of:
Schmidt craps the bed, over and over.
Brett has the ability to rise to the occasion and win games all by himself.
All of which was agreed to be true.
Why did he only use that ability to rise to the occasion to win games by himself , but not use it to actually win the World Series in 1980 instead of letting his team lose to the WS MVP Schmidt?
Why didn't he use that ability in 1982 and 1983 all season and get his team to the post season?? Seems a waste of a talent if he had that ability?
Why does he have so many errors in the LCS?
Why didn't he use that abiliy more in the 1985 World Series and drive in more than one run? Did he somehow know that Bret Saberhagen would carry his team to the title and thus he didn't have to hit any home runs or drive in any runs?
Why waste that ability and just use it to win only one WS??
How does a guy who craps the bed win the WS MVP and defeat Brett?
Please tell me that this statement does not imply that one player beat another player in the game of baseball.
For the uninformed, baseball is a team game. One player can have a significant impact on his team's success, but it is impossible for one player (Schmidt) to defeat another player (Brett) in a series.
This thread is getting funny. Thank you 1948 for the laughs.
i can't believe this is happening again
i may go eat 25 peeps
No, it doesn't imply anything. You guys are saying he has the ability to rise to the occasion in big games. Seems he doesn't have that ability...otherwise he would have 'risen to the occasion', since the occasion called for more in order to win, and he didn't deliver.
Much like the occasion called for him to field ground balls better in the LCS, but he didn't.
Well Schmidt doesn't crap the bed over and over. He was a great 3rd baseman during the regular season, but outside of the1980 World Series, was a very poor performer in the postseason.
Brett could not win games by himself. He was an incredible postseason hitter, and did make Goose Gossage crap his bed at night thinking of pitching to him, but baseball is a team sport.
Was he a great post season hitter, or a good hitter who got hot in a few post seasons??
If he could dictate on how well he could hit in the post season, as you are saying he can, then again, why does he not have an OPS over 1.000 for an entire season and get to MORE post seasons when his team could have used more 1.000 OPS??
ANd why do you just eliminate Mike Schmidt's 1980 World Series MVP?? Or his 1983 NLCS?
And why did George Brett kick so many balls at third base in the LCS and cost unearend runs for his teams in the post season if he was such a good post season player??
Take a deep breath. Breathe in, breathe out. The world needs more peace, love, and understanding.
Historical data and facts show us that the USA men's ice hockey team scored more goals than Russia and Finland did in
the 1980 Olympics when they played each other.
Historical data and facts show us that George Brett was a much better hitter in the postseason than Mike Schmidt was.
Whether you want to agree with those facts is up to you. However you want to word a zillion questions about this, that, and every if, and, or but, is entirely up to you.
But facts are facts. We can't dispute them. We can't ignore them. They are what they are. The facts show that George Brett's WPA in the postseason is far superior to Mike Schmidt's. Mike Schmidt's WPA in the postseason actually shows that he was more of a detriment to his team than an asset over his entire postseason career. Not in the 1980 world series though, where he hit very well.
George Brett was a great hitter during the regular season and also during the postseason.
Pitchers could not strike him out the way they struck out Schmidt. Schmidt struck out twice as much during
his career than Brett did. Brett was better at making contact. Schmidt was better at striking out. Probably a lot has to do
with Schmidt swinging for the fences, or he just wasn't as good a contact hitter as Brett was.
In baseball it's obvious to see that guys like Gwynn and Boggs are great contact hitters, where as guys like Kingman and
McGwire swing for the fences. That's what puts Ted Williams and Babe Ruth above everyone else. Not only could they hit for power, but they could hit for average as well. I know I forgot others like Aaron and Mays, but I don't have the time to list them all.
Those aren't facts when you say that George Brett can rise to the occasion or that he was a great post season hitter. He was a hitter that had some great post seasons, but that does not mean he had a special attribute where you can say he was great post season hitter...hence the questions:
Why didn't he use that post season hitting ability every year during the regular season??? If he truly had that ability then he should be able to replicate it consistently over thousands of at bats. Yet he couldn't.
The nature of baseball hitting has sever ups and downs for even the best of hitters, and the post season does not change that. If you ever hit off of high level pitchers you should know that.
Why did Reggie Jackson have such poor ALCS performances if he is MR. October?
Why did Brett not think fielding was important in the ALCS?? Wouldn't a good post season player make less errors?
And how is ONE more WPA "far superior??" One.
What is Brett's WPA in the post season when you include his fielding errors?
I saw in person at the Phillies stadium, two WS games when the Phillies beat the Royals and George Brett.
All the other times i watched George Brett on TV which wasn't a lot, but when i did he seemed to be uncomfortable out there at third base. Almost like Brett was saying to himself, "Please don't hit the ball to me."