So how do you know the difference between a 3 for 25 week in May and a 3 for 25 week in the LCS , and then determine if it is choking in the LCS or if it is simply a bad streak in the LCS that happens to hitters in baseball ALL THE TIME?
Conversely, how do you know the difference between a 12-25 hot streak in June and a 12-25 hot streak in the World Series and then determine that the hot streak in the World Series was the result of 'rising to the occasion' and the one in June...the result of what then? Rising to the June occasion?
No player maintains that 12-25 pace long haul, so it can't be established that it is their true ability, or that they are a better post season hitter, just because it occurs in a World Series.
You are simply internalizing the results in a way that makes sense to you, but that doesn't mean your internalization is correct, and certainly not fact.
If you would care to tell me how you can know in such certain terms, I am all ears.
See, that's why trying to recreate the magic of the Brett-Schmidt debate isn't going to work. There's only two people left willing to humiliate themselves by taking the Brett side, and really only one since Goldenage apparently thinks playground taunts about Ron Santo are pwning me, but he's not willing to go full Darin and actually argue that Brett was better than Schmidt.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I would take Brett over Schmidt any day of the week. I saw them both play. What’s the big deal ? They both are fantastic during the regular season, and over the course of their postseason career, Bretts WAR is superior to Schmidt’s.
@Goldenage said:
I would take Brett over Schmidt any day of the week. I saw them both play. What’s the big deal ? They both are fantastic during the regular season, and over the course of their postseason career, Bretts WAR is superior to Schmidt’s.
The way you frame this - and I don't know if you're going full Darin or just yanking my chain - implies that Brett and Schmidt were equals, or at least in the same ballpark as equals, in the regular season, when they were not. Schmidt was so much better than Brett in the regular season that if "fantastic' is the word you want to use to describe Brett you're going to need a different word to describe Schmidt. And the notion that what they then each did in a dozen or so plate appearances in the postseason erases what they did in 10,000 regular season plate appearances is so absurd I want to be charitable and assume you don't actually believe it. But if you do, if you really are going full Darin, then I'll stop. There is no debate to be had on the issue - Mike Schmidt was better than George Brett and grass is green are equally settled facts - but I'm truly curious to settle once and for all if you know anything about baseball.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Darin said:
And yet Schmidt still managed to committ 52 more errors at third base than Brett.
Mikey must have looked like a complete nervous wreck out there!
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Goldenage said:
I would take Brett over Schmidt any day of the week. I saw them both play. What’s the big deal ? They both are fantastic during the regular season, and over the course of their postseason career, Bretts WAR is superior to Schmidt’s.
Brett does not have a higher WAR, but;
You said you will take Brett based on his "post season ability", but I'm still waiting for this answer how you come to the determination that he actually has a post season ability and it isn't just baseball being baseball....
So how do you know the difference between a 3 for 25 week in May and a 3 for 25 week in the LCS , and then determine if it is choking in the LCS or if it is simply a bad streak in the LCS that happens to hitters in baseball ALL THE TIME?
Conversely, how do you know the difference between a 12-25 hot streak in June and a 12-25 hot streak in the World Series and then determine that the hot streak in the World Series was the result of 'rising to the occasion' and the one in June...the result of what then? Rising to the June occasion?
No player maintains that 12-25 pace long haul, so it can't be established that it is their true ability, or that they are a "better post season hitter", just because it occurs in a World Series.
You are simply internalizing the results in a way that makes sense to you, but that doesn't mean your internalization is correct, and certainly not fact.
If you would care to tell me how you can know in such certain terms, I am all ears.
To answer the OP'a question it looks like it's happening again. Now
@galaxy27 said:
i can't believe this is happening again
i may go eat 25 peeps
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......
@stevek said:
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."
And yet Schmidt still managed to committ 52 more errors at third base than Brett.
Mikey must have looked like a complete nervous wreck out there!
Mike Schmidt won 10, count 'em, 10 Gold Gloves. George Brett won 1.
You can debate their hitting ability, that's fine, even though overall Schmidt was better. But as for fielding, George Brett couldn't carry Mike Schmidt's jockstrap.
@stevek said:
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."
And yet Schmidt still managed to committ 52 more errors at third base than Brett.
Mikey must have looked like a complete nervous wreck out there!
Mike Schmidt won 10, count 'em, 10 Gold Gloves. George Brett won 1.
You can debate their hitting ability, that's fine, even though overall Schmidt was better. But as for fielding, George Brett couldn't carry Mike Schmidt's jockstrap.
Did Mike Schmidt play in a league with Brooks Robinson and Craig Nettles and Buddy Bell ?
I'm not mocking Schmidt's gold gloves. He was a good fielder, and as you said, very good at fielding bunts.
But the historical data shows that his fielding percentage at third base is pretty much the same as Bretts.
We both watched them play. Neither was faster than the other. They both had similar agility, and their fielding
percentages at third base were pretty much the same.
I think Brooks won 15 or 16 in a row.
@Goldenage said:
I would take Brett over Schmidt any day of the week. I saw them both play. What’s the big deal ? They both are fantastic during the regular season, and over the course of their postseason career, Bretts WAR is superior to Schmidt’s.
The way you frame this - and I don't know if you're going full Darin or just yanking my chain - implies that Brett and Schmidt were equals, or at least in the same ballpark as equals, in the regular season, when they were not. Schmidt was so much better than Brett in the regular season that if "fantastic' is the word you want to use to describe Brett you're going to need a different word to describe Schmidt. And the notion that what they then each did in a dozen or so plate appearances in the postseason erases what they did in 10,000 regular season plate appearances is so absurd I want to be charitable and assume you don't actually believe it. But if you do, if you really are going full Darin, then I'll stop. There is no debate to be had on the issue - Mike Schmidt was better than George Brett and grass is green are equally settled facts - but I'm truly curious to settle once and for all if you know anything about baseball.
This coming from someone who would argue that Martin Broduer was the best goalie of all time, when 2/3rds of his regular season play were way below average.
But if your baseball knowledge is as pathetic as your hockey knowledge, then I'm in for a bunch of laughs at your expense.
@Darin said:
I'm done with the debate, I'm seriously concerned that dallas will spend all
his working hours on here and lose what's left of his business.
So out of concern for his faltering business I withdraw from this thread, victorious of course.
And good luck Dallas, I do think you can turn it around with hard work and determination.
I agree. He won't get any peace, love and understanding here.
Plus, we all know that Ron Santo, Mr. 4%, is the greatest third baseman of all time.
If one is going to judge by the writers who vote for the Hall of Fame on the first ballot as "proof" then one should look at who BWAA voted for the all time baseball team at third base. Mike Schmidt. Brooks came in second. Brett may have come in third I suppose.
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......
@Goldenage said:
I would take Brett over Schmidt any day of the week. I saw them both play. What’s the big deal ? They both are fantastic during the regular season, and over the course of their postseason career, Bretts WAR is superior to Schmidt’s.
I'm truly curious to settle once and for all if you know anything about baseball.
This coming from someone who would argue that Martin Broduer was the best goalie of all time, when 2/3rds of his regular season play were way below average.
But if your baseball knowledge is as pathetic as your hockey knowledge, then I'm in for a bunch of laughs at your expense.
Thank you for settling my question so promptly and so emphatically. That took guts to post that.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Darin said:
I'm done with the debate, I'm seriously concerned that dallas will spend all
his working hours on here and lose what's left of his business.
So out of concern for his faltering business I withdraw from this thread, victorious of course.
And good luck Dallas, I do think you can turn it around with hard work and determination.
I usually laugh at your posts, but this was just sad. I'm so sorry this happened to you.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Justacommeman said:
If one is going to judge by the writers who vote for the Hall of Fame on the first ballot as "proof" then one should look at who BWAA voted for the all time baseball team at third base. Mike Schmidt. Brooks came in second. Brett may have come in third I suppose.
No one is doing it as proof, but nice try. The only proof that we have is that their lifetime regular season numbers are close, and their lifetime post season numbers aren’t.
@Justacommeman said:
If one is going to judge by the writers who vote for the Hall of Fame on the first ballot as "proof" then one should look at who BWAA voted for the all time baseball team at third base. Mike Schmidt. Brooks came in second. Brett may have come in third I suppose.
No one is doing it as proof, but nice try. The only proof that we have is that their lifetime regular season numbers are close, and their lifetime post season numbers aren’t.
Goldenage you can't proclaim a glorious victory in regard to HOF vote%, and then someone counters with a more direct measure of those voters....and then just brush it off like that.
Justacommon man just threw his trump card down onto your proud proclamation and thus, you just lost. ..so good try in attempting to deflect that. Your point just showed that Brett was third best...not first. Sorry.
AND SINCE PASSED BY CHIPPER JONES TOO. Don't forget about that.
You still keep bringing up their post season numbers. But first, their regular season numbers are not close. Schmidt OPS+ 148, and Brett's at 135. Considering Brett sat 10% more games vs lefties than he should have played, and that saved his percentage more, then that gap widens. Schmidt was also the better defender, so close is not an accurate assessment for their abilities.
Also, don't forget to add all the unearned runs Brett was responsible for in the post-season, and subtract those from his offensive contributions....one of the reasons why they didn't win more ALCS's
Until you can properly answer the below question, continuing to bring up post season numbers as some sort of 'proof' simply doesn't work, much like your attempt to use the vote percentage as proof, and then lost.
So how do you know the difference between a 3 for 25 week in May and a 3 for 25 week in the LCS , and then determine if it is choking in the LCS or if it is simply a bad streak in the LCS that happens to hitters in baseball ALL THE TIME?
Conversely, how do you know the difference between a 12-25 hot streak in June and a 12-25 hot streak in the World Series and then determine that the hot streak in the World Series was the result of 'rising to the occasion' and the one in June...the result of what then? Rising to the June occasion?
No player maintains that 12-25 pace long haul, so it can't be established that it is their true ability, or that they are a better post season hitter, just because it occurs in a World Series.
You are simply internalizing the results in a way that makes sense to you, but that doesn't mean your internalization is correct, and certainly not fact.
If you would care to tell me how you can know in such certain terms, I am all ears.
The only "fact" in your cringe-worthy post is that batting average is the only stat that matters. If a player has a .305 batting average then he is a Hank Aaron type hitter. There is nothing to "argue" against, because there is no argument.
I said you were embarrassing yourself. I was wrong. You are obviously incapable of being embarrassed. But watching you do this really and truly is uncomfortable for the rest of us, and you should stop. I will not discuss this topic with you anymore, and I will not pull legs off insects or club baby seals either. Punching down, especially this far down, makes both of us look bad.
Related (and true) story. I was once giving a co-worker a hard time because he was making sports bets against the line. I told him that his odds of winning money, over time, were essentially zero. He asserted that he could, in fact, beat the oddsmakers. I replied that he couldn't beat my dog betting against the line, let alone Vegas. And the bet was on. Over the next several months my coworker and my dog made 100 sports bets (on paper, not for real money). As it turned out, my dog did in fact pick more winners than my coworker, but that wasn't the point. After the bet was over, and the story retold in our office newsletter, I explained to my coworker why he should never have taken that bet. If you lose, you're humiliated because you lost to a dog. If you win, nobody cares because you only beat a dog. Don't bet against dogs; don't argue baseball with Darin. Either way, you can't win.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Darin said:
Just one more point to show how much better a hitter Brett was than Schmidt.
If Brett, instead of retiring when he did, had played two and a half more seasons as a full time starter
and gone hitless for those two and a half seasons, his batting average would be roughly the same as Schmidts'.
In other words, if Brett had gone 0-1,451 his average would have dropped to Schmidts' lowly .267
Of course when a stat isn't in Dallas' favor, that stat automatically is not important.
That's why all you experts who say Batting average doesn't matter is full of crap.
So what kind of hitter would Schmidt have been if he could hit for a great average like Brett.
A Hank Aaron type hitter. Brett and Aaron both hit .305 for their career.
So anyone saying batting average isn't important, just quit now because you don't know anything about baseball.
But at what point do you start giving Schmidt credit for his base on balls?
Sometimes it takes looking at something through a different lens. Imagine that they are not only guys who drive in runs, but also serves as guys who get on base for other players to drive them in.
George Brett batted third for most of his career, and Schmidt for about 40% of his career(and 4th for most of the rest).
Roughly just over half of their at bats come with nobody on base, so automatically, a base on balls for Schmidt has the same value as a single by Brett.
Schmidt had 5,192 Plate Appearances with nobody on base and his OB% was .371
Brett had 6,139 Plate Appearances with nobody on base and his OB% was .351.
That is a lot of plate appearances where the walk value is being completely ignored and the walk value is the exact same value as a single. In essence, Schmidt's batting average with nobody on base was .371 by simply viewing every one of those walks as singles, because they have the exact same value.
That is over half their career worth of plate appearances where Schmidt had a better 'batting average' than Brett, and by a good sum; .371 to .351.
Singles and walks with a runner on first base are also similar, with a small edge to singles.
When you go through every situation and simply add them up, the walk gets you about 2/3 the overall value of a single.
OPS + SLG is the easiest way to incorporate very closely the proper value of a walk, as well as singles, doubles, triples, and home runs.
I could see if Brett and Schmidt were tied in OPS and then you figure that middle of the order hitters get super slightly less value from a walk where it may break that tie. But then if you do that, don't forget that middle of the order hitters get slightly MORE value from a HR too...so in the end it would negate that anyway since Schmidt hit so many more home runs.
What it ends up coming down to is that the OPS lead that Schmidt has over Brett does in fact show that he was a better hitter than Brett. There aren't any margins of error that are going to erase that OPS lead that Schmidt has over Brett.
The things that COULD erase such an OPS lead are comparing guys with varied career lengths, and I've talked about that with Gene Tenace, so I am not a hypocrite by giving Schmidt his proper walk value.
Brett did have a slightly longer career, HOWEVER again, Brett also took his rests vs left handers at about 10% more rate than what an every day player should have faced...so again, that facet mostly negates the little extra career length that Brett had.
But then again, if you ARE going to give Brett that credit for doing it over an extra 1,100 plate appearances, then you have to be consistent and apply that value to their defense.
Schmidt played 4,500 MORE innings at third base than Brett did. Even if they are viewed equal as defenders, the fact that Schmidt managed to play 4,500 more innings that completely erases any tie they may have had defensively.
So in the end, even with the biggest margin of error for OPS given to Brett, it still is not nearly enough to close that gap Schmidt has over Brett as a hitter. Fielding wise most of the evidences shows Schmidt was much better, but even if you ignore that and give it a tie, the fact Schmidt played 4,500 more innings at third gives Schmidt a crystal clear defensive advantage over Brett.
It comes out to Schmidt being the better value both offensively and defensively. There really isn't much of a debate.
@dallasactuary said:
The only "fact" in your cringe-worthy post is that batting average is the only stat that matters. If a player has a .305 batting average then he is a Hank Aaron type hitter. There is nothing to "argue" against, because there is no argument.
I said you were embarrassing yourself. I was wrong. You are obviously incapable of being embarrassed. But watching you do this really and truly is uncomfortable for the rest of us, and you should stop. I will not discuss this topic with you anymore, and I will not pull legs off insects or club baby seals either. Punching down, especially this far down, makes both of us look bad.
Related (and true) story. I was once giving a co-worker a hard time because he was making sports bets against the line. I told him that his odds of winning money, over time, were essentially zero. He asserted that he could, in fact, beat the oddsmakers. I replied that he couldn't beat my dog betting against the line, let alone Vegas. And the bet was on. Over the next several months my coworker and my dog made 100 sports bets (on paper, not for real money). As it turned out, my dog did in fact pick more winners than my coworker, but that wasn't the point. After the bet was over, and the story retold in our office newsletter, I explained to my coworker why he should never have taken that bet. If you lose, you're humiliated because you lost to a dog. If you win, nobody cares because you only beat a dog. Don't bet against dogs; don't argue baseball with Darin. Either way, you can't win.
You're exactly right, sports betting is a sucker's game.
But usually by the time an adult finally figures it out and quits, there's a young person to take his place, who thinks through some sort of handicapping skill, that he could beat the bookies. Sadly, some time later in life, he will be in the same position as the adult, lost a lot of money and quits. Then a young person will take his place, and the cycle repeats itself while the bookies constantly get rich.
@dallasactuary said:
The only "fact" in your cringe-worthy post is that batting average is the only stat that matters. If a player has a .305 batting average then he is a Hank Aaron type hitter. There is nothing to "argue" against, because there is no argument.
I said you were embarrassing yourself. I was wrong. You are obviously incapable of being embarrassed. But watching you do this really and truly is uncomfortable for the rest of us, and you should stop. I will not discuss this topic with you anymore, and I will not pull legs off insects or club baby seals either. Punching down, especially this far down, makes both of us look bad.
Related (and true) story. I was once giving a co-worker a hard time because he was making sports bets against the line. I told him that his odds of winning money, over time, were essentially zero. He asserted that he could, in fact, beat the oddsmakers. I replied that he couldn't beat my dog betting against the line, let alone Vegas. And the bet was on. Over the next several months my coworker and my dog made 100 sports bets (on paper, not for real money). As it turned out, my dog did in fact pick more winners than my coworker, but that wasn't the point. After the bet was over, and the story retold in our office newsletter, I explained to my coworker why he should never have taken that bet. If you lose, you're humiliated because you lost to a dog. If you win, nobody cares because you only beat a dog. Don't bet against dogs; don't argue baseball with Darin. Either way, you can't win.
My post above should put the debate to an end as to who was better, which leaves the post season question next, and which Dallas's post above was actually along the lines of what I was thinking.
Since Golden age has refused to answer my question about how does he determines if going 3 for 25 in May is part of the normal ups and downs baseball hitting, but the 3 for 25 in the World Series is a choke job. Conversely, if going 12-25 in the World Series means you are a post season hitter, then how do you determine if that is any different than the normal baseball hot streaks of 12-25 in June?
I say we put Dallas's dog back to work this coming post season vs Golden Age.
Before the post season starts we will identify every player who has a higher lifetime 'post season OPS 'compared to their regular season OPS.
We will also identify every player who has a worse post season OPS compared to their regular season OPS.
Then we will let the dog pick the players who will have an OPS THIS post season that is better than what they do in the regular season. Then we will let GoldenAge do the same.
Conversely, we will do the same and predict which guys will 'choke' in the post season again. Choke meaning doing worse than they do in the regular season.
Can you tell who the next Bernie Williams is? GoldenAge, how much money would you have lost on Bernie Williams?
Bernie's first 70 post season plate appearances he had a 1.484 OPS.
Bernie Williams next 475 Post Season plate appearances he had a .763 OPS.
Look at those Bernie Williams numbers and let that sink in, and then look at the conclusions being drawn by a mere 166 post season plate appearances by George Brett. .
How much money DID people lose on Ryan Howard?
He had a .988 OPS after his first 115 plate appearances. Then a .659 in his next 84.
SO I guess Williams and Howard should have just quit while they were ahead and be known as post season God's, kind of like Brett.
Conversely, after David Ortiz's first 82 post season plate appearances he had a .649 OPS...a choker.
David Ortiz's next 143 plate appearances he had a 1.231 OPS. A God.
By the time Golden Age would have hopped on board of Ortiz after initially thinking he was a choker, he would have decided he was clutch and then run into this:
David Ortiz followed that up that GOd like performance with a paltry .572 OPS in his next 64 plate appearances.
Then Ortiz got hot again. In the end Ortiz's .947 OPS was pretty darn close to his regular season .931.
It evens out over time. But for two long stretches, Ortiz was bad. For two long stretches, he was great. Typical ups and downs hitters go through all the time in baseball. That is simply the nature of the beast.
Some are lucky in that they aren't given enough time to run into the cold streaks that happen(like Brett). Bernie Williams and Ryan Howard weren't so lucky.
Some are unlucky that they are not given enough time to catch a couple hot streaks. Schmidt did catch a couple hot streaks though, but his cold streaks are also weighed down that his batting average on balls in play in the post season was lower than it was in the regular season. You see, there is also a lot of luck if a ball you hit finds a hole or a glove, and it takes a long time for that luck to even out...and 166 at bats doesn't remotely come close to that amount of time.
That's why batting titles aren't award in May. That is also why even one season worth of hitting is still not enough to establish if that was a player's true ability or the randomness that occurs with baseball hitting, which is unlike anything in any other sport.
I say we put Dallas's dog back to work this coming post season vs Golden Age.
I asked my dog if she would like to participate in a contest with someone who believes George Brett is better than Mike Schmidt. She said no, that would be undignified. Then she ate some poop.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
The reality is that in MLB hitting there is just too much randomness at work to decree that someone is better at hitting in the post season, and the notion that someone who hits better in the post season is thus a better player, compared to a superior hitter who didn't fare as well in the post season, just doesn't add up.
For instance, using the theory posted by DoubleDragon that Brett is better than Schmidt because Brett did bitter at hitting in the post season, must also mean that Lenny Dykstra is a better player than George Brett. I'll save the stats, but look up Lenny Dykstra's post season hitting if one disbelieves me.
Or how about the fact that George Brett was not even the best post season hitter on his own team?? Willie Aikens holds that honor. Is Aikens thus more important or better player to the Royals since he did better than Brett in the post season.
When fans on this thread say, "I will take Brett because he hits better in the post season," they are saying that as if the trend of post season hot streaks will continue with more post season appearances.
As you see with Bernie Williams and countless other guys, it happens a lot where guys put up astronomical post season hitting stats....but once more at bats continue they run into the inevitable cold streaks that are the nature of MLB hitting, and like the 90's Yankee players who play so many post season games, their stats always inch closer to what their regular season stats already say they are.
If someone is going to stick to their post season hitting guns, and poke fun at Dallas, then based on their own theory, Bill Mazeroski is thus the preferable player over George Brett, because Mazeroski is going to perform better in the World Series and give you walk off World Series home runs, the pinnacle of sports achievement, and something Brett could never do on the biggest stage.
Then when you consider that Brett had a NEGATIVE WPA in World Series play, how does that jive with the notion that Brett rose to the occasion?? Shouldn't the World Series be the time where he did his best if he rose to the occasion?
Then also please answer this, if rising to the occasion puts Brett over Schmidt, then how do you deal with the fact that Schmidt has a BETTER WPA in World Series play than Brett??? You have painted yourself into a corner. Schmidt rose to the occasion on the biggest stage BETTER than Brett did! Your own theories make Schmidt the better big game performer.
Case is closed. There will be no epic thread. The theories have been busted. Debunked. Schmidt, WS MVP, is superior to Brett any way you slice it.
here is something i have been thinking about Brett for a while. and I think subconsciously it was in hopes there would be a second debate.
I remember of Brett as being the type of player who was not all that into conditioning. He also played so hard he was getting dinged up a lot. He didnt necessarily come into spring training in all that great a shape. you can get away with that behavior as a youth, but as you get older, the mileage creeps up on you. George did have a lot of injuries and played through a lot of them as well. I know that by 83-84 he had let his body go to the point he was considering retirement. he took conditioning very seriously in the 84 off-season and got back into fantastic shape. his next year, 85 was fantastic. great all around.
this is a long way to say that had Brett taken conditioning more seriously, he wouldn't have missed so much time and would not have had to play hurt as much. this surely would have made his stats even better. Sort of a Mantle-type analogy. Had Mickey taken better care of his body, he could have done even more. many recall the natural tools Brett had. between the hard-nosed style of play and lack of conditioning, I am sure the stats he put up would have been even better.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
The reality is that in MLB hitting there is just too much randomness at work to decree that someone is better at hitting in the post season,
The reality is that we have historical data to show how certain players performed during the regular season and how they performed during the postseason.
In discussing Brett vs Schmidt, we can only go by the data that both players have given us.
Brett gave us one set of data.
Schmidt another.
Based on the performance data of both players, Brett was superior to Schmidt in the postseason.
Based on the performance data during the regular season, Schmidt was slightly better in fielding percentage
and slightly better in the advanced hitting metrics.
Without the 1980 World Series, Mike Schmidt was a horrible postseason performer based on the data he left us.
If it wasn't for that series, he could have gone down as the all time worst postseason performer.
We can only go by the data these players left us.
If you'd like to debate other players based on their regular and postseason performance data, that is fine.
If you ask any baseball fan how Mike Schmidt did outside of the 1980 world series in postseason play, those in the
know would tell you he was absolutely horrible. Which he was. He gave us his stats. Without 1980 WS, he sucked
in the postseason. Even with the 1980 WS, he was nothing to write home about, and actually, quite poor in the postseason.
Here's some more historical data for those who think Schmidt was so great in World Series play.
In Bob Uecker's 6 year pathetic major league career, Uecker's lifetime On Base Percentage was higher than
Mike Schmidt's lifetime World Series On Base Percentage. Uecker was HIGHER than Schmidt !
There's some data the Schmidt people can chew on. Perhaps a little peppers and onions would taste nice too. Fried.
That's the data folks. You can spin it anyway you want. Mike Schmidt's performance in postseason play speaks for itself.
@stevek said:
Come on now...Mike Schmidt won a World Series MVP.
To the best of my knowledge, they usually don't give out a MVP award to someone who didn't perform well.
BTW, George Brett didn't win any.
Case closed.
Mike Schmidt was a great player. Kind of hate saying what I'm saying, but these guys are provoking me to tell the truth about their performance data. Never understood why the Phillies fans would boo the guy. Anyone can easily say that he was the greatest third baseman of all time, outside of Ron Santo.
However, when we look at the data, we can only draw conclusions based on how the players performed.
If Ron Santo hit well at Wrigley Field, but sucked away from home, then we have to acknowledge his performance data.
If Mike Schmidt's on base percentage in the World Series was lower than Bob Uecker's lifetime OBP, then we
have to call it the way Schmidt performed.
What else can we do ? If Spock heard the performance data I've been mentioning, he would tell us it's logical.
I never booed Mike Schmidt. Sometimes disappointed, but never booed him.
But you're right, Phillies fans did too often boo Schmidt. Partly because they expected him to almost hit a home run on every at bat, and secondly Schmidt did have a surly side to him and was basically introverted which didn't play well in Philadelphia.
@stevek said:
I never booed Mike Schmidt. Sometimes disappointed, but never booed him.
But you're right, Phillies fans did too often boo Schmidt. Partly because they expected him to almost hit a home run on every at bat, and secondly Schmidt did have a surly side to him and was basically introverted which didn't play well in Philadelphia.
I thought it was because he came out in the press and spoke about how Phillies fans loved you when you played well, but didn't back you when you went in slumps. Did he come out in the press and say something not too flattering about the fans ? That is usually a no-no in the sports world. The fans pay a ticket price, and they have the right to voice their opinion. But George Brett was worshiped in Kansas City. I think Phillies fans loved Schmidt, but I also think it's an east coast thing. Come to think of it, Yankee fans can boo their team. Not sure I ever heard Red Sox fans boo theirs.
Schmidt's lifetime OPS in the postseason is .690 Compared to Bob Uecker's lifetime OPS of .581, not too bad. Lol.
Schmidt's world series OPS is .673
George Brett's lifetime postseason OPS is 1.023
Brett's world series OPS is .968
What can we do except accept the performance data that the players left us ?
Like you have said, Schmidt won a World Series MVP, but his World Series OPS data is actually closer to Bob Uecker's
career OPS data than it is to George Brett's world series OPS data.
Mike Schmidt is closer to Uecker in stats for the postseason than he is to Brett.
The data is the data. It does not lie.
Brett blows Schmidt away in the postseason, which is why I can easily call him the greatest third baseman of all time.
All I can do is analyze each players performance data. I can also call Schmidt the greatest. both were incredible.
@stevek said:
I never booed Mike Schmidt. Sometimes disappointed, but never booed him.
But you're right, Phillies fans did too often boo Schmidt. Partly because they expected him to almost hit a home run on every at bat, and secondly Schmidt did have a surly side to him and was basically introverted which didn't play well in Philadelphia.
I thought it was because he came out in the press and spoke about how Phillies fans loved you when you played well, but didn't back you when you went in slumps. Did he come out in the press and say something not too flattering about the fans ? That is usually a no-no in the sports world. The fans pay a ticket price, and they have the right to voice their opinion. But George Brett was worshiped in Kansas City. I think Phillies fans loved Schmidt, but I also think it's an east coast thing. Come to think of it, Yankee fans can boo their team. Not sure I ever heard Red Sox fans boo theirs.
Schmidt said some chit to the press, i can't recall the exact words. But Philly fans booed other stars who were totally cordial to the press and the fans. Ron Jaworski comes to mind.
Philly sports fans are always hissed off about something. Fortunately, I'm a noteworthy exception to all that.
@stevek said:
I never booed Mike Schmidt. Sometimes disappointed, but never booed him.
But you're right, Phillies fans did too often boo Schmidt. Partly because they expected him to almost hit a home run on every at bat, and secondly Schmidt did have a surly side to him and was basically introverted which didn't play well in Philadelphia.
I thought it was because he came out in the press and spoke about how Phillies fans loved you when you played well, but didn't back you when you went in slumps. Did he come out in the press and say something not too flattering about the fans ? That is usually a no-no in the sports world. The fans pay a ticket price, and they have the right to voice their opinion. But George Brett was worshiped in Kansas City. I think Phillies fans loved Schmidt, but I also think it's an east coast thing. Come to think of it, Yankee fans can boo their team. Not sure I ever heard Red Sox fans boo theirs.
Schmidt said some chit to the press, i can't recall the exact words. But Philly fans booed other stars who were totally cordial to the press and the fans. Ron Jaworski comes to mind.
Philly sports fans are always hissed off about something. Fortunately, I'm a noteworthy exception to all that.
1948 swell robinson- Excellent post, you've proven your worth as the real baseball expert on this board.
We have one so called expert who is a Cardinal fan who thinks they got robbed in the 85 series so he
dumps on Brett every chance he gets. Makes jokes about him whenever he can and so forth. At least you're objective.
Schmidt was a better walker than Brett, so was Gene Tenace but I don't place much importance
on that as far as hitting ability goes. Being a great hitter is the ability to hit with high average combined
with a lot of power. Sure if you don't get a good pitch to hit, then take a walk.
But when saying Schmidt was a better hitter, I disagree. His OBP is higher because of all the walks sure,
but to me Brett was better at combining average and power than Schmidt was. Pure power, of course Schmidt.
But Brett was a doubles machine and also hit as many triples as Willie Wilson so that made up for
him not hitting as many home runs as Mike Schmidt.
Of course Hank Aaron is way ahead of Brett as a hitter, but not because he could draw walks.
He was Bretts' equal at putting the ball safely in play and much better hitting for power.
You make an interesting point about power data between Schmidt and Brett. Obviously the data leans in Schmidt's direction, but we also have to look at ballpark data. The power allies to left and right center were much longer in KC than they were in Philadelphia. A lot of doubles in KC were home runs in Philly, and a lot of home runs in Philly were doubles in Kansas City. I don't have the time, nor the desire, to look at length of each of George Brett's doubles in KC, nor Schmidt's home runs in Philadelphia to right and left center to see if it makes a difference.
Agree about your points comparing Aaron to Schmidt and Brett.
you make a good point about field dimensions. i didn't realize royals stadium was larger. both power alleys and center were deeper. i am sure that took away from some of the home run production of brett. great hitters usually tailer their swings to suit their home ballpark. it would be interesting to hear from brett himself if there is any truth to it. he seemed to have great power in Yankee stadium and their short left field. i wonder if he would have been a pull hitter had he been a Yankee instead of a line drive hitter for the royals?
Comments
So how do you know the difference between a 3 for 25 week in May and a 3 for 25 week in the LCS , and then determine if it is choking in the LCS or if it is simply a bad streak in the LCS that happens to hitters in baseball ALL THE TIME?
Conversely, how do you know the difference between a 12-25 hot streak in June and a 12-25 hot streak in the World Series and then determine that the hot streak in the World Series was the result of 'rising to the occasion' and the one in June...the result of what then? Rising to the June occasion?
No player maintains that 12-25 pace long haul, so it can't be established that it is their true ability, or that they are a better post season hitter, just because it occurs in a World Series.
You are simply internalizing the results in a way that makes sense to you, but that doesn't mean your internalization is correct, and certainly not fact.
If you would care to tell me how you can know in such certain terms, I am all ears.
See, that's why trying to recreate the magic of the Brett-Schmidt debate isn't going to work. There's only two people left willing to humiliate themselves by taking the Brett side, and really only one since Goldenage apparently thinks playground taunts about Ron Santo are pwning me, but he's not willing to go full Darin and actually argue that Brett was better than Schmidt.
I would take Brett over Schmidt any day of the week. I saw them both play. What’s the big deal ? They both are fantastic during the regular season, and over the course of their postseason career, Bretts WAR is superior to Schmidt’s.
.
The way you frame this - and I don't know if you're going full Darin or just yanking my chain - implies that Brett and Schmidt were equals, or at least in the same ballpark as equals, in the regular season, when they were not. Schmidt was so much better than Brett in the regular season that if "fantastic' is the word you want to use to describe Brett you're going to need a different word to describe Schmidt. And the notion that what they then each did in a dozen or so plate appearances in the postseason erases what they did in 10,000 regular season plate appearances is so absurd I want to be charitable and assume you don't actually believe it. But if you do, if you really are going full Darin, then I'll stop. There is no debate to be had on the issue - Mike Schmidt was better than George Brett and grass is green are equally settled facts - but I'm truly curious to settle once and for all if you know anything about baseball.
.
Brett does not have a higher WAR, but;
You said you will take Brett based on his "post season ability", but I'm still waiting for this answer how you come to the determination that he actually has a post season ability and it isn't just baseball being baseball....
So how do you know the difference between a 3 for 25 week in May and a 3 for 25 week in the LCS , and then determine if it is choking in the LCS or if it is simply a bad streak in the LCS that happens to hitters in baseball ALL THE TIME?
Conversely, how do you know the difference between a 12-25 hot streak in June and a 12-25 hot streak in the World Series and then determine that the hot streak in the World Series was the result of 'rising to the occasion' and the one in June...the result of what then? Rising to the June occasion?
No player maintains that 12-25 pace long haul, so it can't be established that it is their true ability, or that they are a "better post season hitter", just because it occurs in a World Series.
You are simply internalizing the results in a way that makes sense to you, but that doesn't mean your internalization is correct, and certainly not fact.
If you would care to tell me how you can know in such certain terms, I am all ears.
.
To answer the OP'a question it looks like it's happening again. Now
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......
.
Mike Schmidt won 10, count 'em, 10 Gold Gloves. George Brett won 1.
You can debate their hitting ability, that's fine, even though overall Schmidt was better. But as for fielding, George Brett couldn't carry Mike Schmidt's jockstrap.
Did Mike Schmidt play in a league with Brooks Robinson and Craig Nettles and Buddy Bell ?
I'm not mocking Schmidt's gold gloves. He was a good fielder, and as you said, very good at fielding bunts.
But the historical data shows that his fielding percentage at third base is pretty much the same as Bretts.
We both watched them play. Neither was faster than the other. They both had similar agility, and their fielding
percentages at third base were pretty much the same.
I think Brooks won 15 or 16 in a row.
This coming from someone who would argue that Martin Broduer was the best goalie of all time, when 2/3rds of his regular season play were way below average.
But if your baseball knowledge is as pathetic as your hockey knowledge, then I'm in for a bunch of laughs at your expense.
I agree. He won't get any peace, love and understanding here.
Plus, we all know that Ron Santo, Mr. 4%, is the greatest third baseman of all time.
Actually, there is no debate here about which player was better.
The hall of fame voters have spoken.
1st ballot - George Brett 98.2 percent of the votes
1st ballot - Mike Schmidt 96.5 percent of the votes
They both were great.
But for some reason Brett stood out a little more to the writers/voters.
Someone please remind me how much Santo got on his first ballot ?
If one is going to judge by the writers who vote for the Hall of Fame on the first ballot as "proof" then one should look at who BWAA voted for the all time baseball team at third base. Mike Schmidt. Brooks came in second. Brett may have come in third I suppose.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_All-Time_Team
m
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......
Thank you for settling my question so promptly and so emphatically. That took guts to post that.
I usually laugh at your posts, but this was just sad. I'm so sorry this happened to you.
No one is doing it as proof, but nice try. The only proof that we have is that their lifetime regular season numbers are close, and their lifetime post season numbers aren’t.
Goldenage you can't proclaim a glorious victory in regard to HOF vote%, and then someone counters with a more direct measure of those voters....and then just brush it off like that.
Justacommon man just threw his trump card down onto your proud proclamation and thus, you just lost. ..so good try in attempting to deflect that. Your point just showed that Brett was third best...not first. Sorry.
AND SINCE PASSED BY CHIPPER JONES TOO. Don't forget about that.
You still keep bringing up their post season numbers. But first, their regular season numbers are not close. Schmidt OPS+ 148, and Brett's at 135. Considering Brett sat 10% more games vs lefties than he should have played, and that saved his percentage more, then that gap widens. Schmidt was also the better defender, so close is not an accurate assessment for their abilities.
Also, don't forget to add all the unearned runs Brett was responsible for in the post-season, and subtract those from his offensive contributions....one of the reasons why they didn't win more ALCS's
Until you can properly answer the below question, continuing to bring up post season numbers as some sort of 'proof' simply doesn't work, much like your attempt to use the vote percentage as proof, and then lost.
So how do you know the difference between a 3 for 25 week in May and a 3 for 25 week in the LCS , and then determine if it is choking in the LCS or if it is simply a bad streak in the LCS that happens to hitters in baseball ALL THE TIME?
Conversely, how do you know the difference between a 12-25 hot streak in June and a 12-25 hot streak in the World Series and then determine that the hot streak in the World Series was the result of 'rising to the occasion' and the one in June...the result of what then? Rising to the June occasion?
No player maintains that 12-25 pace long haul, so it can't be established that it is their true ability, or that they are a better post season hitter, just because it occurs in a World Series.
You are simply internalizing the results in a way that makes sense to you, but that doesn't mean your internalization is correct, and certainly not fact.
If you would care to tell me how you can know in such certain terms, I am all ears.
>
Actually the better question would be why weren't Schmidt and Brett both unanimous Hall of Famers?
My guess it had something to do with personal reasons, especially with Schmidt who had a love/hate relationship with the media.
Of course sometimes there are idiot voters out there who won't put a player on their ballot if it's their first year of eligibility.
.
Please stop, you're embarrassing yourself, and it's getting uncomfortable for the rest of us.
.
Can't answer the question. Still trying to decide what was better, "The Addams Family" or "The Munsters".
The only "fact" in your cringe-worthy post is that batting average is the only stat that matters. If a player has a .305 batting average then he is a Hank Aaron type hitter. There is nothing to "argue" against, because there is no argument.
I said you were embarrassing yourself. I was wrong. You are obviously incapable of being embarrassed. But watching you do this really and truly is uncomfortable for the rest of us, and you should stop. I will not discuss this topic with you anymore, and I will not pull legs off insects or club baby seals either. Punching down, especially this far down, makes both of us look bad.
Related (and true) story. I was once giving a co-worker a hard time because he was making sports bets against the line. I told him that his odds of winning money, over time, were essentially zero. He asserted that he could, in fact, beat the oddsmakers. I replied that he couldn't beat my dog betting against the line, let alone Vegas. And the bet was on. Over the next several months my coworker and my dog made 100 sports bets (on paper, not for real money). As it turned out, my dog did in fact pick more winners than my coworker, but that wasn't the point. After the bet was over, and the story retold in our office newsletter, I explained to my coworker why he should never have taken that bet. If you lose, you're humiliated because you lost to a dog. If you win, nobody cares because you only beat a dog. Don't bet against dogs; don't argue baseball with Darin. Either way, you can't win.
But at what point do you start giving Schmidt credit for his base on balls?
Sometimes it takes looking at something through a different lens. Imagine that they are not only guys who drive in runs, but also serves as guys who get on base for other players to drive them in.
George Brett batted third for most of his career, and Schmidt for about 40% of his career(and 4th for most of the rest).
Roughly just over half of their at bats come with nobody on base, so automatically, a base on balls for Schmidt has the same value as a single by Brett.
Schmidt had 5,192 Plate Appearances with nobody on base and his OB% was .371
Brett had 6,139 Plate Appearances with nobody on base and his OB% was .351.
That is a lot of plate appearances where the walk value is being completely ignored and the walk value is the exact same value as a single. In essence, Schmidt's batting average with nobody on base was .371 by simply viewing every one of those walks as singles, because they have the exact same value.
That is over half their career worth of plate appearances where Schmidt had a better 'batting average' than Brett, and by a good sum; .371 to .351.
Singles and walks with a runner on first base are also similar, with a small edge to singles.
When you go through every situation and simply add them up, the walk gets you about 2/3 the overall value of a single.
OPS + SLG is the easiest way to incorporate very closely the proper value of a walk, as well as singles, doubles, triples, and home runs.
I could see if Brett and Schmidt were tied in OPS and then you figure that middle of the order hitters get super slightly less value from a walk where it may break that tie. But then if you do that, don't forget that middle of the order hitters get slightly MORE value from a HR too...so in the end it would negate that anyway since Schmidt hit so many more home runs.
What it ends up coming down to is that the OPS lead that Schmidt has over Brett does in fact show that he was a better hitter than Brett. There aren't any margins of error that are going to erase that OPS lead that Schmidt has over Brett.
The things that COULD erase such an OPS lead are comparing guys with varied career lengths, and I've talked about that with Gene Tenace, so I am not a hypocrite by giving Schmidt his proper walk value.
Brett did have a slightly longer career, HOWEVER again, Brett also took his rests vs left handers at about 10% more rate than what an every day player should have faced...so again, that facet mostly negates the little extra career length that Brett had.
But then again, if you ARE going to give Brett that credit for doing it over an extra 1,100 plate appearances, then you have to be consistent and apply that value to their defense.
Schmidt played 4,500 MORE innings at third base than Brett did. Even if they are viewed equal as defenders, the fact that Schmidt managed to play 4,500 more innings that completely erases any tie they may have had defensively.
So in the end, even with the biggest margin of error for OPS given to Brett, it still is not nearly enough to close that gap Schmidt has over Brett as a hitter. Fielding wise most of the evidences shows Schmidt was much better, but even if you ignore that and give it a tie, the fact Schmidt played 4,500 more innings at third gives Schmidt a crystal clear defensive advantage over Brett.
It comes out to Schmidt being the better value both offensively and defensively. There really isn't much of a debate.
You're exactly right, sports betting is a sucker's game.
But usually by the time an adult finally figures it out and quits, there's a young person to take his place, who thinks through some sort of handicapping skill, that he could beat the bookies. Sadly, some time later in life, he will be in the same position as the adult, lost a lot of money and quits. Then a young person will take his place, and the cycle repeats itself while the bookies constantly get rich.
.
Both shows were entertaining. The Addams family was more geared towards adults while the Munsters was mainly for the kids.
.
My post above should put the debate to an end as to who was better, which leaves the post season question next, and which Dallas's post above was actually along the lines of what I was thinking.
Since Golden age has refused to answer my question about how does he determines if going 3 for 25 in May is part of the normal ups and downs baseball hitting, but the 3 for 25 in the World Series is a choke job. Conversely, if going 12-25 in the World Series means you are a post season hitter, then how do you determine if that is any different than the normal baseball hot streaks of 12-25 in June?
I say we put Dallas's dog back to work this coming post season vs Golden Age.
Before the post season starts we will identify every player who has a higher lifetime 'post season OPS 'compared to their regular season OPS.
We will also identify every player who has a worse post season OPS compared to their regular season OPS.
Then we will let the dog pick the players who will have an OPS THIS post season that is better than what they do in the regular season. Then we will let GoldenAge do the same.
Conversely, we will do the same and predict which guys will 'choke' in the post season again. Choke meaning doing worse than they do in the regular season.
Can you tell who the next Bernie Williams is? GoldenAge, how much money would you have lost on Bernie Williams?
Bernie's first 70 post season plate appearances he had a 1.484 OPS.
Bernie Williams next 475 Post Season plate appearances he had a .763 OPS.
Look at those Bernie Williams numbers and let that sink in, and then look at the conclusions being drawn by a mere 166 post season plate appearances by George Brett. .
How much money DID people lose on Ryan Howard?
He had a .988 OPS after his first 115 plate appearances. Then a .659 in his next 84.
SO I guess Williams and Howard should have just quit while they were ahead and be known as post season God's, kind of like Brett.
Conversely, after David Ortiz's first 82 post season plate appearances he had a .649 OPS...a choker.
David Ortiz's next 143 plate appearances he had a 1.231 OPS. A God.
By the time Golden Age would have hopped on board of Ortiz after initially thinking he was a choker, he would have decided he was clutch and then run into this:
David Ortiz followed that up that GOd like performance with a paltry .572 OPS in his next 64 plate appearances.
Then Ortiz got hot again. In the end Ortiz's .947 OPS was pretty darn close to his regular season .931.
It evens out over time. But for two long stretches, Ortiz was bad. For two long stretches, he was great. Typical ups and downs hitters go through all the time in baseball. That is simply the nature of the beast.
Some are lucky in that they aren't given enough time to run into the cold streaks that happen(like Brett). Bernie Williams and Ryan Howard weren't so lucky.
Some are unlucky that they are not given enough time to catch a couple hot streaks. Schmidt did catch a couple hot streaks though, but his cold streaks are also weighed down that his batting average on balls in play in the post season was lower than it was in the regular season. You see, there is also a lot of luck if a ball you hit finds a hole or a glove, and it takes a long time for that luck to even out...and 166 at bats doesn't remotely come close to that amount of time.
That's why batting titles aren't award in May. That is also why even one season worth of hitting is still not enough to establish if that was a player's true ability or the randomness that occurs with baseball hitting, which is unlike anything in any other sport.
I asked my dog if she would like to participate in a contest with someone who believes George Brett is better than Mike Schmidt. She said no, that would be undignified. Then she ate some poop.
The reality is that in MLB hitting there is just too much randomness at work to decree that someone is better at hitting in the post season, and the notion that someone who hits better in the post season is thus a better player, compared to a superior hitter who didn't fare as well in the post season, just doesn't add up.
For instance, using the theory posted by DoubleDragon that Brett is better than Schmidt because Brett did bitter at hitting in the post season, must also mean that Lenny Dykstra is a better player than George Brett. I'll save the stats, but look up Lenny Dykstra's post season hitting if one disbelieves me.
Or how about the fact that George Brett was not even the best post season hitter on his own team?? Willie Aikens holds that honor. Is Aikens thus more important or better player to the Royals since he did better than Brett in the post season.
When fans on this thread say, "I will take Brett because he hits better in the post season," they are saying that as if the trend of post season hot streaks will continue with more post season appearances.
As you see with Bernie Williams and countless other guys, it happens a lot where guys put up astronomical post season hitting stats....but once more at bats continue they run into the inevitable cold streaks that are the nature of MLB hitting, and like the 90's Yankee players who play so many post season games, their stats always inch closer to what their regular season stats already say they are.
If someone is going to stick to their post season hitting guns, and poke fun at Dallas, then based on their own theory, Bill Mazeroski is thus the preferable player over George Brett, because Mazeroski is going to perform better in the World Series and give you walk off World Series home runs, the pinnacle of sports achievement, and something Brett could never do on the biggest stage.
Then when you consider that Brett had a NEGATIVE WPA in World Series play, how does that jive with the notion that Brett rose to the occasion?? Shouldn't the World Series be the time where he did his best if he rose to the occasion?
Then also please answer this, if rising to the occasion puts Brett over Schmidt, then how do you deal with the fact that Schmidt has a BETTER WPA in World Series play than Brett??? You have painted yourself into a corner. Schmidt rose to the occasion on the biggest stage BETTER than Brett did! Your own theories make Schmidt the better big game performer.
Case is closed. There will be no epic thread. The theories have been busted. Debunked. Schmidt, WS MVP, is superior to Brett any way you slice it.
this is so great. i am so glad this is happening again. we need to immediately change the title to this thread to Schmidt vs. Brett 2.
I wanna play too. i think I will play for team Brett. I love an underdog.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
here is something i have been thinking about Brett for a while. and I think subconsciously it was in hopes there would be a second debate.
I remember of Brett as being the type of player who was not all that into conditioning. He also played so hard he was getting dinged up a lot. He didnt necessarily come into spring training in all that great a shape. you can get away with that behavior as a youth, but as you get older, the mileage creeps up on you. George did have a lot of injuries and played through a lot of them as well. I know that by 83-84 he had let his body go to the point he was considering retirement. he took conditioning very seriously in the 84 off-season and got back into fantastic shape. his next year, 85 was fantastic. great all around.
this is a long way to say that had Brett taken conditioning more seriously, he wouldn't have missed so much time and would not have had to play hurt as much. this surely would have made his stats even better. Sort of a Mantle-type analogy. Had Mickey taken better care of his body, he could have done even more. many recall the natural tools Brett had. between the hard-nosed style of play and lack of conditioning, I am sure the stats he put up would have been even better.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
The reality is that we have historical data to show how certain players performed during the regular season and how they performed during the postseason.
In discussing Brett vs Schmidt, we can only go by the data that both players have given us.
Brett gave us one set of data.
Schmidt another.
Based on the performance data of both players, Brett was superior to Schmidt in the postseason.
Based on the performance data during the regular season, Schmidt was slightly better in fielding percentage
and slightly better in the advanced hitting metrics.
Without the 1980 World Series, Mike Schmidt was a horrible postseason performer based on the data he left us.
If it wasn't for that series, he could have gone down as the all time worst postseason performer.
We can only go by the data these players left us.
If you'd like to debate other players based on their regular and postseason performance data, that is fine.
If you ask any baseball fan how Mike Schmidt did outside of the 1980 world series in postseason play, those in the
know would tell you he was absolutely horrible. Which he was. He gave us his stats. Without 1980 WS, he sucked
in the postseason. Even with the 1980 WS, he was nothing to write home about, and actually, quite poor in the postseason.
Agreed. Very childish. What a sad human being. Kind of feel sorry for him.
Here is some historical data for everyone to analyze.
Ron Santo 1st ballot hall of fame vote - 4%
Here's some more historical data for those who think Schmidt was so great in World Series play.
In Bob Uecker's 6 year pathetic major league career, Uecker's lifetime On Base Percentage was higher than
Mike Schmidt's lifetime World Series On Base Percentage. Uecker was HIGHER than Schmidt !
There's some data the Schmidt people can chew on. Perhaps a little peppers and onions would taste nice too. Fried.
That's the data folks. You can spin it anyway you want. Mike Schmidt's performance in postseason play speaks for itself.
Come on now...Mike Schmidt won a World Series MVP.
To the best of my knowledge, they usually don't give out a MVP award to someone who didn't perform well.
BTW, George Brett didn't win any.
Case closed.
Mike Schmidt was a great player. Kind of hate saying what I'm saying, but these guys are provoking me to tell the truth about their performance data. Never understood why the Phillies fans would boo the guy. Anyone can easily say that he was the greatest third baseman of all time, outside of Ron Santo.
However, when we look at the data, we can only draw conclusions based on how the players performed.
If Ron Santo hit well at Wrigley Field, but sucked away from home, then we have to acknowledge his performance data.
If Mike Schmidt's on base percentage in the World Series was lower than Bob Uecker's lifetime OBP, then we
have to call it the way Schmidt performed.
What else can we do ? If Spock heard the performance data I've been mentioning, he would tell us it's logical.
I never booed Mike Schmidt. Sometimes disappointed, but never booed him.
But you're right, Phillies fans did too often boo Schmidt. Partly because they expected him to almost hit a home run on every at bat, and secondly Schmidt did have a surly side to him and was basically introverted which didn't play well in Philadelphia.
cheers
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
I thought it was because he came out in the press and spoke about how Phillies fans loved you when you played well, but didn't back you when you went in slumps. Did he come out in the press and say something not too flattering about the fans ? That is usually a no-no in the sports world. The fans pay a ticket price, and they have the right to voice their opinion. But George Brett was worshiped in Kansas City. I think Phillies fans loved Schmidt, but I also think it's an east coast thing. Come to think of it, Yankee fans can boo their team. Not sure I ever heard Red Sox fans boo theirs.
Schmidt's lifetime OPS in the postseason is .690 Compared to Bob Uecker's lifetime OPS of .581, not too bad. Lol.
Schmidt's world series OPS is .673
George Brett's lifetime postseason OPS is 1.023
Brett's world series OPS is .968
What can we do except accept the performance data that the players left us ?
Like you have said, Schmidt won a World Series MVP, but his World Series OPS data is actually closer to Bob Uecker's
career OPS data than it is to George Brett's world series OPS data.
Mike Schmidt is closer to Uecker in stats for the postseason than he is to Brett.
The data is the data. It does not lie.
Brett blows Schmidt away in the postseason, which is why I can easily call him the greatest third baseman of all time.
All I can do is analyze each players performance data. I can also call Schmidt the greatest. both were incredible.
Schmidt said some chit to the press, i can't recall the exact words. But Philly fans booed other stars who were totally cordial to the press and the fans. Ron Jaworski comes to mind.
Philly sports fans are always hissed off about something. Fortunately, I'm a noteworthy exception to all that.
I > @Darin said:
You make an interesting point about power data between Schmidt and Brett. Obviously the data leans in Schmidt's direction, but we also have to look at ballpark data. The power allies to left and right center were much longer in KC than they were in Philadelphia. A lot of doubles in KC were home runs in Philly, and a lot of home runs in Philly were doubles in Kansas City. I don't have the time, nor the desire, to look at length of each of George Brett's doubles in KC, nor Schmidt's home runs in Philadelphia to right and left center to see if it makes a difference.
Agree about your points comparing Aaron to Schmidt and Brett.
you make a good point about field dimensions. i didn't realize royals stadium was larger. both power alleys and center were deeper. i am sure that took away from some of the home run production of brett. great hitters usually tailer their swings to suit their home ballpark. it would be interesting to hear from brett himself if there is any truth to it. he seemed to have great power in Yankee stadium and their short left field. i wonder if he would have been a pull hitter had he been a Yankee instead of a line drive hitter for the royals?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.