Options
Try and make the case that Harmon Killebrew isn't the greatest third baseman of all time.
Goldenage
Posts: 3,278 ✭✭✭✭✭
For the Schmidt fans, Schmidt comes in at #2.
https://thebaseballscholar.com/2017/07/31/10-best-offensive-seasons-by-a-third-baseman/
0
Comments
.390 BA in the modern age is impressive. If I recall he was over .400 at one time. Those are Ty Cobb #’s and unless an unknown phenom enters the game it may stand as a modern record. That said, hard to argue against the #1 ranking.
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
Al Rosen 1953
That’s the best season a 3rd baseman ever had...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
You are correct.
George Brett had the best 70% of a season a 3rd baseman ever had, which is not the same thing. Don't get me wrong, Brett still had a phenomenal season in 1980, even missing 40+ games, but he did not add more value in his short season than Rosen added in his full season.
Schmidt's 1981 season is trickier, since he did technically play a full season. I still give the nod to Rosen, but a case could be made for Schmidt.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/1953-batting-leaders.shtml
Rosen, Rosen, Rosen, Rosen 😂
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Flip is in my favorite set, too.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Depends on if you count Tony Gwynn's .394 or not - wasn't a full season but just 7 fewer games than Brett.
It was fun watching Brett that year. I have a friend who at that time had front row season tickets behind the visitors dugout at The Big A. He gave me the tickets every time KC was in town. George was a local kid and that added to it all. I would watch him come out of the dugout, mess around with his bat and go into the on deck circle. He showed an air of TOTAL CONFIDENCE!. Maybe because he was home.....I don't know. Anyway, it was fun. I later got to be around him as a result of singing up a high school player. And, I became acquainted with his brother Ken in relation to his ownership in the Riverside, CA. Red Wave. A minor league team that was here for a few years. Talk about finding talent!! They're good people. And smart to boot.
117 games played disqualifies him right off the bat.
Killebrew's 1969 was better.
Gwynn's year was short. Not his fault though.
The most impressive to me when looking at the .400 BA would be Ted's 1957 when he batted .388 at the age of 38.
Twenty years later Rod Carew also batted .388 and he played in 155 games.
He only played 3B for about 60% of the season, so I'm not sure he's eligible. If he is, then Killer is in the conversation for second place, but Rosen still runs away with the top spot. They look close, but the park difference is substantial, and Rosen's numbers are even more impressive than they look. Plus, Rosen only struck out 48 times, and my new understanding is that's worth 100 or so runs.
It’s my understanding that Rosen’s low strikeouts was more a function of a Yogi Berra/Vlad Guerrero sensibility in the box; because he was the type that could get his bat to every * ball, he was known to foul off pitch after pitch and put it ‘in play’ quite a bit, the former had an effect that is obviously not the same as a run scored but it does hasten the arrival of (mostly) inferior bullpen pitchers and often leads to runs being scored, albeit in an indirect fashion.
*hyperbole, but if you saw a Vlad (or similar batter) AB, you know that 9-11 pitch at bats can change the trajectory of an inning and/or a game, wherein the next batter benefits from the lapse of concentration or temporarily tired body of the opposing pitcher.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
OK. I'll ask the question. But this question is only based on not putting into account the amount of games Brett played during his season. What am I missing looking at the data ?
Brett 1980
OPS 1.118
SLG .664
OBP .454
Ave. .390
K's 22
Rosen
OPS 1.034
SLG .613
OBP .422
Ave. .336
K's 48 (which per game average was more than Brett's)
First, 1/4 of a season is far to much to ignore or simply set aside. Second, Rosen was the best defensive third baseman in the American League in addition to being the best overall hitter in the AL, and from a certain point of view, perhaps all of MLB in the ‘53 season. Had he been ruled safe at first (many witnesses say he easily should have, including eventually the umpire) in the last game of the season in 1953, then he also wins a Triple Crown and won an alternative crown of three anyway as Rosen lead the league in Runs, HR and RBI. And despite playing for small market team Cleveland in an American League that had Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Yogi Berra and other superstars, Rosen was the unanimous choice for MVP.
I’m a George Brett fan; he was sensational and his was the first single baseball card I ever bought with my own money.
I’m not big on adding lots of advanced stats to an argument but suffice it to say that Bill James wrote a nice piece on this topic and chose Rosen.
I’ll also add that A Rod’s 2007 season was also worthy of consideration even though most of his circulatory system was pumping as many foreign chemicals as red blood cells.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Yeah, let's be honest, these were all great seasons by all these great ballplayers. It gets down to a tit for tat, and we usually go with the ballplayer we liked better.
But sadly we tend to have to get into the advanced stats, but I don't feel like going there either. Just looking at the basic stats it appears that Brett had the better year.
I'm not sure why 1/4th of a season matters, but that's ok. Brett was absolutely on fire that entire season. I saw that season, and he was Ted Williams like. He actually took his game to a whole new level. Something that Rod Carew and Tony Gwynn did as well. Ron Guidry took his game to a whole new level one year as well. These are magical seasons where players just feel good physically, mentally, and emotionally, and they just do something that we all should cherish.
But if I just look at the numbers, then I just can't see where Rosen gets the edge.
I find this hard to believe.
If two players are equal and one plays 75% of the time and the other 95% of the time, well...
Look a little closer? It’s obviously close - that’s why we can debate it but whether you like baseball card stats or sabermetric ones, Rosen narrowly beats Brett in almost everything.
Cherry picking five stars and basing all on that is not an overall look at the body of work. It’s exactly what it claims to be - a look at five categories where stats favor George Brett.
A popular move, no doubt, just not one that carries much weight for me.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Brett's 1980 season was amazing. Never forget it.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Schmidt , Brett. Tied
Sorry, Rosen hit into more DPs, and Killebrew's numbers are ASTRONOMICALLY BETTER than they look!
All you ever seem to do is look at numbers, so at times you miss value that Bill James didn't measure.
Killebrew led his team to a first place finish by destroying Oakland's (second place team) pitching. Reggie Jackson (your choice for MVP in 1969?) even said "The Killer killed us". During the pennant race Killebrew hit 11 HR in the final 31 games.
Killebrew also helped his team more by playing some 1st base, so the Twins could field a better team, getting another right handed batter in the lineup. Yet you say this hurts him in the comparison, I see your point, but I say it makes Harmon a MORE valuable 3rd baseman, not less. He played in every game that year, just not all at 3rd.
So, if you are going to "punish" him for his willingness to help the team, you should then reward him, let's look at how well he played at 3rd in 1969; 1,066 OPS and a 199 sOPS+.........better than Rosen. He sacrificed personal stats for the sake of the team.
Cleveland was an easy place to hit, said Teddy Ballgame. Until you or somebody else can show me how park factor can hurt HOF caliber players like it does "ham-and-eggers", I'm going to ignore it. Park factor is fine for the "average" player, for guys like Rosen and Killebrew..............not much.
Rosen hit better at home in 1953, as well as for his entire career, so the park didn't hurt him.
Don't forget all of Killebrew's WALKS that year, you LOVE the base on balls!
Rosen was a better defensive player. Killebrew was more versatile.
I'll graciously admit it might have been a tie!
;-)
P.S. Brett isn't even in the conversation, he missed 45 games.You can't help the club when your in the tub.
@JoeBanzai
Planet Earth was an easy place to hit for Ted Williams. 😉
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
If Guidry was 19-3 with a 1.87 era instead of 25-3 with a 1.87 era would that hurt him because he had a little shoulder issue that kept him out ?
Just think, Brett hit that good and he wasn’t even 100 percent healthy through that season.
True, but Williams addressed the "park factor" discussion of his time. There were quite a few people who theorized that the Yankees and Red Sox should trade Ted for Joe DiMaggio because of Yankee stadium's deep center field hurting Joe and the "short porch" in right field that would/should help Ted.
Williams "poo-pooed" the theory, saying he would rather play in Detroit or Cleveland because they had better backdrops to see the pitch coming in, he went on to say that Fenway was not an easy park to hit in for left handed batters, and when the stands were full and people were wearing white shirts, it was harder to see the ball, he went on to say if he ever was to play for the Yankees, he would "never get a good pitch to hit". Finally, he said he would even rather hit in Washington even though that was one of the biggest fields there was.
While I can't deny park factor adjustments have some validity, I believe they have significantly less when discussing the very best of the best hitters. Your (beautiful) statement that "Planet Earth was an easy place to hit for Ted Williams." is a perfect example. Another is this quote; "Harmon Killebrew can knock the ball out of any park in America, including Yellowstone. -Paul Richards".
Park factor is probably pretty accurate for the "average" player, has an even bigger effect on the poor hitters and has a relatively small impact on MOST HOF players numbers.
Yankee stadium hurt DiMaggio a bit, home run wise, because he wasn't a "pull" hitter, but the huge area in the outfield helped his singles, doubles and triples. Mantle said he lost up to 10 HR a year on balls he hit into Center.
Fenway, for the right handed hitter as well, Yankee satdium has been "fixed" and so Fenway (maybe Coors field) is really the only park I think would think has a significant effect on a great hitter.> @fiveniner said:
Tied in the fact that neither played in enough games to qualify. Most of the "top" years here are _partial _years, not years.
It really boils down to Killebrew, Rosen, Cabrerra and Allen with A Roid having a couple of years because he juiced.
P.S. Killebrew played almost as much at 3rd in 1969 as Brett and Schmidt did in their big years, PLUS he played a bunch at 1st.
Forget the 1st base numbers then, Killebrew was as good or better!
Just curious as to where people think the "cut-off" should be before you start deducting from a players contributions to a season, obviously if you like Schmidt's 1981, they need to play in 100 games. Way too low for my thinking. His 1980 was better.
I'm at about 145 games, that's 90%, 120 games is WAY past the point of considering it an "All-Time Great year".
If you only count the games Killebrew played at third base, then he's not even in the conversation. If you do count all the games he played at first base, does his 1969 season even meet the condition of being a great season "by a third baseman"? As I said, if you ignore the position issue then Killebrew is in the conversation for second place.
My MVP pick for 1969, since you asked, would probably have been Jackson - who did unquestionably have the best season - but I think it would have been cool if Petrocelli had won it. Maybe a 10% chance I would have let my feelings trump the facts and voted for Rico.
>
Using this reasoning, which is fine, also must also eliminate Brett's 1980 season and Schmidt's 1981, Mike's 1980 was better. But the fact remains that Killebrew was better at third base and played about the same amount of time at that position, he also played some 1st base because he was available. Someone said "the best ability is availability" and they had a good point.
>
>
Where do you see "unquestionably"?
There's no "unquestionably" here, no matter who you would choose. Killebrew deserved it over Jackson who spent the second half of the year doing almost nothing while his team failed to beat Killebrew's Twins. Killebrew's OPS against Oakland was almost 1.500!!!!! Jackson's OPS vs the Twins was .858. The Twins were 13-5 against the A's, there's your division championship, and MVP.
Statistically their numbers were nearly identical, but Killebrew drove in 30 more runs, he also played in 10 more games. Games that Jackson could have made a difference in.
Petrocelli is a nice observation. Damn fine year. Pretty amazing for a SS to hit 40 HR.
Another George Brett post down in flames.
LOL
You realize that Schmidt only missed five games in 1981, right?
Yes.
edited to add; Last years stats also wouldn't be considered in a list of All-Time greatest years. Tony Oliva batted .444 in 1962 and noboby cares. He followed that up with .429 the next year!
I don't understand your philosophy. You seem to believe that Kirby Puckett was better than Scott Rolen and Andruw Jones in large part because when Rolen and Jones couldn't play it hurt the team because their replacements were much worse. Regardless of the merits of that argument, it seems contradictory to then praise Tony Oliva for a season in which his "back-ups" played all but ten innings in right field. He "followed that up" with a season in which the Twins used his "back-ups" for every single inning in right field.
The 1981 Phillies couldn't have possibly been hurt by Luis Aguayo's 5 innings, Ramón Aviles' 30, and John Vukovich's 16 at third.
I have stated my philosophy quite clearly. Players who don't play full seasons are not as good as those that do. I will now add; even if it's a shortened season and player doesn't miss because of injury.
Unless its a pretty spectacular year.
What_ you_ need to explain to me is, why you give some guys numbers they don't actually produce and others, like Oliva, you don't.
Earlier, I asked what people thought was a fair number of games played/missed where you started to "penalize" a player because it's not a full season. No responses so far, but you don't think Oliva's 9 games in 1962 were enough. I don't either.
My thoughts are that anything below 145 games played is where you start to deduct, unless the (in this case) HR totals are similar to full season numbers.
Schmidt's wonderful 1981, had he continued to hit at the same pace, would have given him about 48 HR and a .316 BA for an entire 160 games, but he wasn't able to do that. It's not his fault, it was a shortened season.
I can't just assume he would have played another 50 games at the same pace AND give him credit for numbers he didn't produce, just like no one is going to assume Oliva was going to hit .444 for the entire season in 1962, Had Schmidt hit 44(?) home runs in 1981, I would take a harder look.
2020 was a short season as well. No historic years there either.
Sort of funny this subject came up today... picked up a 58 Killebrew card today.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.