@craig44 said:
you make a good point about field dimensions. i didn't realize royals stadium was larger.
As big as the Kauffman Stadium outfield is currently, the power alleys and centerfield dimensions are actually 10 feet less than when Brett played, while I believe the foul poles are still the same.
Also, everyone knows that George Brett could rise to the occasion and hit a homerun whenever he damn well pleased! 😉 Sometimes he would choose to hit inside-the-parkers just to switch it up. @Darin earlier referenced Brett's incredible last week of the 1985 regular season. 2 of the 5 homeruns that he hit that week were of the IPHR variety.
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.
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.
"Schmidt was so much better than Brett in the regular season" - Please provide the historical data to prove it.
I already supplied the historical data to prove that Brett was so much better than Schmidt in the postseason. I actually provided the data to show that Schmidt is more like Bob Eucker in the post season than he is to Brett.
Now please provide your historical data to show how Brett is closer to Eucker during the regular season than Schmidt.
I've got a little bit of advice for you. - You can't.
@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.
"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"
Who ever said this ? Mike Schmidt provides us historical data on what he did in the postseason. George Brett provided his data. We analyze it. We draw conclusions from it. If you can't come to the conclusion that George Brett was totally superior to Mike Schmidt in the postseason, than you simply are not a rational thinker, or you are just illogical.
If you are truly curious to settle once and for all if I know anything about baseball, then provide your data to see if I can analyze it correctly. Please show me how Mike Schmidt makes George Brett closer to Bob Eucker statistically during the regular season the way Brett makes Schmidt closer to Eucker in the postseason.
You will never be able to find the data. It simply does not exist. Unless you want to make something up, but you will only show yourself to be an illogical fool more than what you already have.
When it counted most, a World Series matchup, the Phillies kicked the Royals' keister along with George Brett and the rest of the Royals' players...and Mike Schmidt won the MVP.
@stevek said:
When it counted most, a World Series matchup, the Phillies kicked the Royals' keister along with George Brett and the rest of the Royals' players...and Mike Schmidt won the MVP.
Anything else you need to know?
Yes, Mike Schmidt's performance data in one postseason series was outstanding. He actually had two outstanding post season series. But his lifetime postseason performance data is closer to Bob Eucker than it is to George Brett.
He's not even close to Brett when it comes to total postseason performance, when there is better pitching to face.
Being completely impartial I will settle this once and for all. The greatest 3rd baseman was........................
Al Rosen. Case closed. It's not debatable. Anyone who disagrees is obviously anti-sematic.
@Goldenage said:
Now please provide your historical data to show how Brett is closer to Eucker during the regular season than Schmidt.
I've got a little bit of advice for you. - You can't.t
Nice straw man. Obviously Brett is closer to Schmidt than he is to Eucker, but that was never the issue.
You have based 100% of your argument regarding the postseason to demonstrate that Brett was better than WS MVP Schmidt on WPA. Not the argument I'd make, but let's go with that. In the regular season, Brett had 49.7 WPA and Schmidt had 58.1. That means Schmidt was 17% better than Brett. Add in their postseason and it's Brett 51.1 to Schmidt 57.8, and now Schmidt is only 13% better. Again, not the data I'd use, but since it's the data that you used you can't brush it off without looking like a drooling idiot. Add in their fielding and the gap grows; I'll let you decide by how much, but again denying that it grows at least a little bit puts you in drooling idiot territory so using your data the case seems to be closed.
I could provide other data if I thought it would mean anything to you; batter runs, OPS+, Win Shares, WAR, makes no difference. Every meaningful stat shows Schmidt was better than Brett and by a fairly consistent 10%-20% margin. They weren't all that close. It gets a little bit gray with Mathews, the second best third baseman, but not so gray that you can't see that Schmidt was still better.
Brett was great, no denying it. Schmidt was the GOAT, and I'm not aware of any reasonably intelligent person who denies it. So when you say that I "will never be able to find the data" to show Schmidt was better than Brett, I have no idea what you mean. I can't find any data that says otherwise, because none exists.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@stevek said:
When it counted most, a World Series matchup, the Phillies kicked the Royals' keister along with George Brett and the rest of the Royals' players...and Mike Schmidt won the MVP.
Anything else you need to know?
Surely if Brett had the ability to rise to the occasion, then why was his World Series Win Probability Added in the negative?? lol
Sorry GoldenAge, based on YOUR theory, Bill Mazeroski is better than Brett. If you want to continue to say that Bill Mazeroski was better than Brett, that is your choice.
GoldenAge, you can make those post season bet above if you are that confident in your ability to pick out players who rise to the occasion from the ones who choke. It is primiarly form simple randomness.
The best hitters have the best chance of having the hottest post seasons, but like any week in May, even average players can go nuts in the post season for a stretch...but if those guys had such an ability to go nuts, then why just be average all year?
Answer this question, why would Lenny Dykstra be soooo darn good in the post season, waaaaaay better than Brett especially in the World Series, but then choose to be so much worse in the regular season?
Are you saying that Dykstra was not a good post season hitter? If so, then why? HIs stats are better than Brett. If Dykstra did have an ability to be a post season hitter to rise to the occasion, then why only deploy that ability in the World Series?? Why not do that all year and get your team to MORE post seasons??
@stevek said:
When it counted most, a World Series matchup, the Phillies kicked the Royals' keister along with George Brett and the rest of the Royals' players...and Mike Schmidt won the MVP.
Anything else you need to know?
Yes, Mike Schmidt's performance data in one postseason series was outstanding. He actually had two outstanding post season series. But his lifetime postseason performance data is closer to Bob Eucker than it is to George Brett.
He's not even close to Brett when it comes to total postseason performance, when there is better pitching to face.
Surely if Brett had the ability to rise to the occasion, then why was his World Series Win Probability Added in the negative?? lol
Sorry GoldenAge, based on YOUR theory, Bill Mazeroski is better than Brett. If you want to continue to say that Bill Mazeroski was better than Brett, that is your choice.
GoldenAge, you can make those post season bet above if you are that confident in your ability to pick out players who rise to the occasion from the ones who choke. It is primiarly form simple randomness.
The best hitters have the best chance of having the hottest post seasons, but like any week in May, even average players can go nuts in the post season for a stretch...but if those guys had such an ability to go nuts, then why just be average all year?
Answer this question, why would Lenny Dykstra be soooo darn good in the post season, waaaaaay better than Brett especially in the World Series, but then choose to be so much worse in the regular season?
Are you saying that Dykstra was not a good post season hitter? If so, then why? HIs stats are better than Brett. If Dykstra did have an ability to be a post season hitter to rise to the occasion, then why only deploy that ability in the World Series?? Why not do that all year and get your team to MORE post seasons??
Dykstra had six home runs in the World Series, and a 1.124 OPS. Based on your theory, Dykstra is a better hitter than Brett because he does better when it counts most.
@Darin said:
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.
I see you value the ability to make contact, and there is certain value in that. I say Buckner gets extra value in that, but when I say extra value, it isn't a ton, and I'm talking more of Buckner having value in using him in the best spot in the lineup, behind some elite HR hitter who homers and gets pitched around a lot. I could work with a Buckner in my lineup. His high contact high average skill set is rare and useful if deployed correctly. Batting him second or even third is not the best spot. He should be batting fifth behind Bonds or Mantle.
The problem arises when you measure those contact at bats and their results. If you make a contact out and no base runners move, then the out is the same value as a strikeout. I think we can all agree on that. If you are going to the nitty gritty, then(especially in today's game), it is probably advantageous to strike out because it is going to make the pitchers pitch count rise.
You can add up all the ground outs that Brett had that moved a runner up and do the same for Schmidt. Credit needs to be given for that.
I see you are giving Brett his credit for doubles and triples, as you should. But how many doubles does a batter need to close the gap on the guy who hits more home runs?
Same with singles vs walks. We know bases empty singles and walks are the same. But how much more is a single worth with a man on second and third compared to a walk? Obviously much more. Those values need to be credited. Brett gets more of those than Schmidt, but you have to count Schmidt's too.
In the end, after you do that exercise for each and every base/out situation you end up coming to pretty darn good stats like Run Expectancy in the 24 base out situations and Win Probability Added. It credits all of that. It removes the guesswork. HOWEVER;
Bu even those can get a little more murky if some teams offer more chances to succeed in higher leverage situations as the better hitters will increase their's more. For instance, Cal Ripken was able to hit more often with runners on second and third etc, compared to Eddie Murray in the same lineup. The pitchers pitched to Ripken and since he was better than average he was able to ring the cash register more with more doubles and homers...while Murray in those situations was simply pitched around and the most he could do was get the walk value(which is at its lowest, compared to singles, with guys on second and third). So when people only look at their sabermetric totals, they are wrong, IN THAT CASE, because Murray had the bat taken out of his hand in the situations where he would be ringing that cash register more.
Or Joe Morgan, who got to ring that cash register quite often because he played on an elite offense compared to the rest of the league.
So there ARE some problems in Run Excpectancy and WPA, but Schmidt has a pretty good lead in hitting over Brett in those:
Brett Run Expectancy is 539 runs.
Schmidt Run Expectancy is 624 runs.
Brett WPA is 52.4 wins.
Schmidt WPA is 55.4 wins.
I could erase all of Cal Ripken's sabermetric lead over Murray from 1982-1985 and rightfully give the MVP to Murray in 1983 based on those factors above. However, common sense already tells me that since Ripken did not see a single intentional walk from 1982-1985 with Murray batting behind him, that we know who the true MVP was, and isn't really necessary to dig deeper into those stats, as a little old school common sense comes in handy. If Murray had the personality of Ken Griffey JR, he would have been the unanimous MVP in '83 and '84.
I don't see an avenue for Brett to chip away at Schmidt's lead though...because while all the points you bring out above are true, they are already factored in.
In actuality, Schmidt may have nit pick some points toward him. I believe that Brett may have had the speedier guys ahead of him as you mentioned Wilson above, and if those guys scored from first on a double, compared to Schimdt's guy that may not have, then that is going to make Brett's WPA rise higher unfairly. There are probably some cases where Schmidt was hitting with a pitcher running the bases in front of him too. If there are some where the table tilts to Brett, I am all ears if I am overlooking something.
Even if you picked away at those leads that Schmidt has offensively to make it even, it comes down to the defense. The biggest problem for Brett in overcoming Schmidt's defensive value is that Brett played 4,500 LESS innings at third. That is a lot. So even if you make it where they are equal defensively when they played third, the fact that Schmidt held that ability longer/better for 4,500 more innings is going to make him the preferable defensive player.
That's a good analysis, but you left out double plays. "High contact" hitters, certainly including Brett and Buckner, hit into a lot more DPs than the better hitters who take a lot of walks. If you look at the OBP, SLG, BA or whatever of any team the numbers don't add up unless you also look at DP. Every DP wipes out a single or walk of someone who had gotten on base; the proper way to account for that is the adjust the stats of the player who did the wiping out.
To save me a set of calculations, I won't recalc Schmidt and we'll assume that his DPs were average. So Schmidt's OPS+ is 148 and his "adjusted" OPS+ remains 148. For Brett and Buckner, rather than adjust for all of their DPs, I'll just adjust for their DPs that were more than Schmidt's. Brett's OPS+ is 135, but his adjusted OPS+ falls to 132. Buckner's OPS+ is 100, but his adjusted OPS+ falls to 95. (For both the algebra purists and the algebraically challenged, what I did here isn't exact because there's a shortcut taken, but because the three players had similar PA, it's close enough.)
I know Buckner (and other "high contact" hitters) have their fans, and if you're the manager of a team stuck with Buckner then sure, there are ways to use him that are better than others. But Buckner was a below average hitter. Dave Cash, another "high contact" hitter who got 200 hits or close to it year in and year out, was a terrible hitter. "High contact" hitters who are fast enough can still be average hitters (Matty Alou) or even above average hitters (Ichiro), but they can't be great. Great hitters - each and every one of them, ever - swing hard at strikes and don't swing at balls. With very few exceptions, great hitters strike out more than average and walk more than average.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary said:
That's a good analysis, but you left out double plays. "High contact" hitters, certainly including Brett and Buckner, hit into a lot more DPs than the better hitters who take a lot of walks. If you look at the OBP, SLG, BA or whatever of any team the numbers don't add up unless you also look at DP. Every DP wipes out a single or walk of someone who had gotten on base; the proper way to account for that is the adjust the stats of the player who did the wiping out.
To save me a set of calculations, I won't recalc Schmidt and we'll assume that his DPs were average. So Schmidt's OPS+ is 148 and his "adjusted" OPS+ remains 148. For Brett and Buckner, rather than adjust for all of their DPs, I'll just adjust for their DPs that were more than Schmidt's. Brett's OPS+ is 135, but his adjusted OPS+ falls to 132. Buckner's OPS+ is 100, but his adjusted OPS+ falls to 95. (For both the algebra purists and the algebraically challenged, what I did here isn't exact because there's a shortcut taken, but because the three players had similar PA, it's close enough.)
I know Buckner (and other "high contact" hitters) have their fans, and if you're the manager of a team stuck with Buckner then sure, there are ways to use him that are better than others. But Buckner was a below average hitter. Dave Cash, another "high contact" hitter who got 200 hits or close to it year in and year out, was a terrible hitter. "High contact" hitters who are fast enough can still be average hitters (Matty Alou) or even above average hitters (Ichiro), but they can't be great. Great hitters - each and every one of them, ever - swing hard at strikes and don't swing at balls. With very few exceptions, great hitters strike out more than average and walk more than average.
True.
I want to ask GoldenAge how he feels about George Brett being a .320 hitter at home and only .290 on the road considering how much he has discounted Santo. Also a .506 SLG% at home and only .469 on the road? I mean that springy turf led to a lot of ground balls springing past infielders for hits, and line drives splitting the outfielders and turning singles into doubles and triples.
Oh and the springy turf induced 129 Stolen bases with only 48 CS
Away he was 72 Stolen Bases and 49 CS.
Of those inside the park home runs alluded to early, do those happen if he isn't running on the springy KC turf??
I haven't seen a good enough study yet to debunk how much artificial turf helps/hurts batting averages because they don't take into account the types of hitters doing the hitting and I am certain that my baseball sports sense says that the turf can help a hitter's batting average depending on the type of hitter he was, and a high contact line drive hitter like Brett would be the exact type of hitter I believe it would help.
I know for a fact that it helped get more triples league wide. In 1980 the rate of triples was nearly twice as high on turf as opposed to grass fields. I don't know if KC was even higher than other turf fields, it may have been.
Cleary George Brett hit much better at home and clearly ran much better at home too.
If Ron Santo the HOFer was a product of Wrigley Field, then I am just as certain that George Brett the lifetime .305 hitter was the product of artificial turf. .290ish seems more in line for Brett.
Comments
.
As big as the Kauffman Stadium outfield is currently, the power alleys and centerfield dimensions are actually 10 feet less than when Brett played, while I believe the foul poles are still the same.
Also, everyone knows that George Brett could rise to the occasion and hit a homerun whenever he damn well pleased! 😉 Sometimes he would choose to hit inside-the-parkers just to switch it up. @Darin earlier referenced Brett's incredible last week of the 1985 regular season. 2 of the 5 homeruns that he hit that week were of the IPHR variety.
Schmidt
Robinson
Brett
All great
The end.
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......
Best defensive 3rd baseman of all time - Brooks
Best hitting 3rd baseman of all time - Brett and Schmidt
Greatest all around 3rd baseman - Ron Santo
"Schmidt was so much better than Brett in the regular season" - Please provide the historical data to prove it.
I already supplied the historical data to prove that Brett was so much better than Schmidt in the postseason. I actually provided the data to show that Schmidt is more like Bob Eucker in the post season than he is to Brett.
Now please provide your historical data to show how Brett is closer to Eucker during the regular season than Schmidt.
I've got a little bit of advice for you. - You can't.
"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"
Who ever said this ? Mike Schmidt provides us historical data on what he did in the postseason. George Brett provided his data. We analyze it. We draw conclusions from it. If you can't come to the conclusion that George Brett was totally superior to Mike Schmidt in the postseason, than you simply are not a rational thinker, or you are just illogical.
If you are truly curious to settle once and for all if I know anything about baseball, then provide your data to see if I can analyze it correctly. Please show me how Mike Schmidt makes George Brett closer to Bob Eucker statistically during the regular season the way Brett makes Schmidt closer to Eucker in the postseason.
You will never be able to find the data. It simply does not exist. Unless you want to make something up, but you will only show yourself to be an illogical fool more than what you already have.
When it counted most, a World Series matchup, the Phillies kicked the Royals' keister along with George Brett and the rest of the Royals' players...and Mike Schmidt won the MVP.
Anything else you need to know?
Yes, Mike Schmidt's performance data in one postseason series was outstanding. He actually had two outstanding post season series. But his lifetime postseason performance data is closer to Bob Eucker than it is to George Brett.
He's not even close to Brett when it comes to total postseason performance, when there is better pitching to face.
Being completely impartial I will settle this once and for all. The greatest 3rd baseman was........................
Al Rosen. Case closed. It's not debatable. Anyone who disagrees is obviously anti-sematic.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Nice straw man. Obviously Brett is closer to Schmidt than he is to Eucker, but that was never the issue.
You have based 100% of your argument regarding the postseason to demonstrate that Brett was better than WS MVP Schmidt on WPA. Not the argument I'd make, but let's go with that. In the regular season, Brett had 49.7 WPA and Schmidt had 58.1. That means Schmidt was 17% better than Brett. Add in their postseason and it's Brett 51.1 to Schmidt 57.8, and now Schmidt is only 13% better. Again, not the data I'd use, but since it's the data that you used you can't brush it off without looking like a drooling idiot. Add in their fielding and the gap grows; I'll let you decide by how much, but again denying that it grows at least a little bit puts you in drooling idiot territory so using your data the case seems to be closed.
I could provide other data if I thought it would mean anything to you; batter runs, OPS+, Win Shares, WAR, makes no difference. Every meaningful stat shows Schmidt was better than Brett and by a fairly consistent 10%-20% margin. They weren't all that close. It gets a little bit gray with Mathews, the second best third baseman, but not so gray that you can't see that Schmidt was still better.
Brett was great, no denying it. Schmidt was the GOAT, and I'm not aware of any reasonably intelligent person who denies it. So when you say that I "will never be able to find the data" to show Schmidt was better than Brett, I have no idea what you mean. I can't find any data that says otherwise, because none exists.
Surely if Brett had the ability to rise to the occasion, then why was his World Series Win Probability Added in the negative?? lol
Sorry GoldenAge, based on YOUR theory, Bill Mazeroski is better than Brett. If you want to continue to say that Bill Mazeroski was better than Brett, that is your choice.
GoldenAge, you can make those post season bet above if you are that confident in your ability to pick out players who rise to the occasion from the ones who choke. It is primiarly form simple randomness.
The best hitters have the best chance of having the hottest post seasons, but like any week in May, even average players can go nuts in the post season for a stretch...but if those guys had such an ability to go nuts, then why just be average all year?
Answer this question, why would Lenny Dykstra be soooo darn good in the post season, waaaaaay better than Brett especially in the World Series, but then choose to be so much worse in the regular season?
Are you saying that Dykstra was not a good post season hitter? If so, then why? HIs stats are better than Brett. If Dykstra did have an ability to be a post season hitter to rise to the occasion, then why only deploy that ability in the World Series?? Why not do that all year and get your team to MORE post seasons??
Surely if Brett had the ability to rise to the occasion, then why was his World Series Win Probability Added in the negative?? lol
Sorry GoldenAge, based on YOUR theory, Bill Mazeroski is better than Brett. If you want to continue to say that Bill Mazeroski was better than Brett, that is your choice.
GoldenAge, you can make those post season bet above if you are that confident in your ability to pick out players who rise to the occasion from the ones who choke. It is primiarly form simple randomness.
The best hitters have the best chance of having the hottest post seasons, but like any week in May, even average players can go nuts in the post season for a stretch...but if those guys had such an ability to go nuts, then why just be average all year?
Answer this question, why would Lenny Dykstra be soooo darn good in the post season, waaaaaay better than Brett especially in the World Series, but then choose to be so much worse in the regular season?
Are you saying that Dykstra was not a good post season hitter? If so, then why? HIs stats are better than Brett. If Dykstra did have an ability to be a post season hitter to rise to the occasion, then why only deploy that ability in the World Series?? Why not do that all year and get your team to MORE post seasons??
Dykstra had six home runs in the World Series, and a 1.124 OPS. Based on your theory, Dykstra is a better hitter than Brett because he does better when it counts most.
I see you value the ability to make contact, and there is certain value in that. I say Buckner gets extra value in that, but when I say extra value, it isn't a ton, and I'm talking more of Buckner having value in using him in the best spot in the lineup, behind some elite HR hitter who homers and gets pitched around a lot. I could work with a Buckner in my lineup. His high contact high average skill set is rare and useful if deployed correctly. Batting him second or even third is not the best spot. He should be batting fifth behind Bonds or Mantle.
The problem arises when you measure those contact at bats and their results. If you make a contact out and no base runners move, then the out is the same value as a strikeout. I think we can all agree on that. If you are going to the nitty gritty, then(especially in today's game), it is probably advantageous to strike out because it is going to make the pitchers pitch count rise.
You can add up all the ground outs that Brett had that moved a runner up and do the same for Schmidt. Credit needs to be given for that.
I see you are giving Brett his credit for doubles and triples, as you should. But how many doubles does a batter need to close the gap on the guy who hits more home runs?
Same with singles vs walks. We know bases empty singles and walks are the same. But how much more is a single worth with a man on second and third compared to a walk? Obviously much more. Those values need to be credited. Brett gets more of those than Schmidt, but you have to count Schmidt's too.
In the end, after you do that exercise for each and every base/out situation you end up coming to pretty darn good stats like Run Expectancy in the 24 base out situations and Win Probability Added. It credits all of that. It removes the guesswork. HOWEVER;
Bu even those can get a little more murky if some teams offer more chances to succeed in higher leverage situations as the better hitters will increase their's more. For instance, Cal Ripken was able to hit more often with runners on second and third etc, compared to Eddie Murray in the same lineup. The pitchers pitched to Ripken and since he was better than average he was able to ring the cash register more with more doubles and homers...while Murray in those situations was simply pitched around and the most he could do was get the walk value(which is at its lowest, compared to singles, with guys on second and third). So when people only look at their sabermetric totals, they are wrong, IN THAT CASE, because Murray had the bat taken out of his hand in the situations where he would be ringing that cash register more.
Or Joe Morgan, who got to ring that cash register quite often because he played on an elite offense compared to the rest of the league.
So there ARE some problems in Run Excpectancy and WPA, but Schmidt has a pretty good lead in hitting over Brett in those:
Brett Run Expectancy is 539 runs.
Schmidt Run Expectancy is 624 runs.
Brett WPA is 52.4 wins.
Schmidt WPA is 55.4 wins.
I could erase all of Cal Ripken's sabermetric lead over Murray from 1982-1985 and rightfully give the MVP to Murray in 1983 based on those factors above. However, common sense already tells me that since Ripken did not see a single intentional walk from 1982-1985 with Murray batting behind him, that we know who the true MVP was, and isn't really necessary to dig deeper into those stats, as a little old school common sense comes in handy. If Murray had the personality of Ken Griffey JR, he would have been the unanimous MVP in '83 and '84.
I don't see an avenue for Brett to chip away at Schmidt's lead though...because while all the points you bring out above are true, they are already factored in.
In actuality, Schmidt may have nit pick some points toward him. I believe that Brett may have had the speedier guys ahead of him as you mentioned Wilson above, and if those guys scored from first on a double, compared to Schimdt's guy that may not have, then that is going to make Brett's WPA rise higher unfairly. There are probably some cases where Schmidt was hitting with a pitcher running the bases in front of him too. If there are some where the table tilts to Brett, I am all ears if I am overlooking something.
Even if you picked away at those leads that Schmidt has offensively to make it even, it comes down to the defense. The biggest problem for Brett in overcoming Schmidt's defensive value is that Brett played 4,500 LESS innings at third. That is a lot. So even if you make it where they are equal defensively when they played third, the fact that Schmidt held that ability longer/better for 4,500 more innings is going to make him the preferable defensive player.
That's a good analysis, but you left out double plays. "High contact" hitters, certainly including Brett and Buckner, hit into a lot more DPs than the better hitters who take a lot of walks. If you look at the OBP, SLG, BA or whatever of any team the numbers don't add up unless you also look at DP. Every DP wipes out a single or walk of someone who had gotten on base; the proper way to account for that is the adjust the stats of the player who did the wiping out.
To save me a set of calculations, I won't recalc Schmidt and we'll assume that his DPs were average. So Schmidt's OPS+ is 148 and his "adjusted" OPS+ remains 148. For Brett and Buckner, rather than adjust for all of their DPs, I'll just adjust for their DPs that were more than Schmidt's. Brett's OPS+ is 135, but his adjusted OPS+ falls to 132. Buckner's OPS+ is 100, but his adjusted OPS+ falls to 95. (For both the algebra purists and the algebraically challenged, what I did here isn't exact because there's a shortcut taken, but because the three players had similar PA, it's close enough.)
I know Buckner (and other "high contact" hitters) have their fans, and if you're the manager of a team stuck with Buckner then sure, there are ways to use him that are better than others. But Buckner was a below average hitter. Dave Cash, another "high contact" hitter who got 200 hits or close to it year in and year out, was a terrible hitter. "High contact" hitters who are fast enough can still be average hitters (Matty Alou) or even above average hitters (Ichiro), but they can't be great. Great hitters - each and every one of them, ever - swing hard at strikes and don't swing at balls. With very few exceptions, great hitters strike out more than average and walk more than average.
True.
I want to ask GoldenAge how he feels about George Brett being a .320 hitter at home and only .290 on the road considering how much he has discounted Santo. Also a .506 SLG% at home and only .469 on the road? I mean that springy turf led to a lot of ground balls springing past infielders for hits, and line drives splitting the outfielders and turning singles into doubles and triples.
Oh and the springy turf induced 129 Stolen bases with only 48 CS
Away he was 72 Stolen Bases and 49 CS.
Of those inside the park home runs alluded to early, do those happen if he isn't running on the springy KC turf??
I haven't seen a good enough study yet to debunk how much artificial turf helps/hurts batting averages because they don't take into account the types of hitters doing the hitting and I am certain that my baseball sports sense says that the turf can help a hitter's batting average depending on the type of hitter he was, and a high contact line drive hitter like Brett would be the exact type of hitter I believe it would help.
I know for a fact that it helped get more triples league wide. In 1980 the rate of triples was nearly twice as high on turf as opposed to grass fields. I don't know if KC was even higher than other turf fields, it may have been.
Cleary George Brett hit much better at home and clearly ran much better at home too.
If Ron Santo the HOFer was a product of Wrigley Field, then I am just as certain that George Brett the lifetime .305 hitter was the product of artificial turf. .290ish seems more in line for Brett.
Sorry,one cannot have debates devoid of the "Dimeman".