Here is the continuation of Brett giving away the 1980 World Series caught looking in biggest AB

1948_Swell_Robinson

@countdouglas

Even after Brett's bad fielding gave up the lead, Brett STILL had a chance to be a hero. They were only down by one run heading into the bottom of the 9th. There was a man on first base and nobody out and George Brett came up for the biggest at bat of his career. Countdouglas has said it only counts when done in the biggest moment. World Series tied 2-2. Bottom of the 9th inning, man on first, down by one, so therefore represents George Brett's biggest at bat of his career.

In fact, by the expression on this fan's face, she was crying and praying for George Brett to come through. Many 'clutch' moments are often assigned AFTER the fact. Here we can see the anguish of the fans how big this clutch moment was BEFORE it unfolded.

Time for George to step up for the biggest at bat of his career. Countdouglas likes pitch by pitch accounts. Keep in mind that Brett had already given the lead away in the top half of the inning.

First pitch check swing called strike.

Second pitch Brett swings right through it.

How ironic that on the third pitch Brett gets caught looking. Now I know why Countdouglas is obsessed with Mike Trout getting caught looking in that mere first round divisional playoff game. It is because his hero lost his team the World Series(twice) by getting rung up on three pitches in the biggest at bat of his career and in the Royals franchise history to date.

Here he is walking bat after the biggest choke job in Royals history. Choking in the field in the top of the 9th and then compounding it by choking in the bottom of the 9th getting rung up, therefore rendering ALL of his 'lack of strikeouts' in his career pointless because he struck out when it mattered the absolute most in his career and that franchise's history to date.

I would like to apologize to George Brett fans because I do not feel this way about George Brett. However, fair is fair. If fans are going to use false narratives to tear down other people's favorites(Trout is in no way a favorite of mine though), then they need to apply those same methods to their 'heroes'.

1948_Swell_Robinson

Fans were pleading for Brett to get a hit to make up for his costly misplay after Mike Schmidt got into his head in the top of the 9th, leading to Schmidt reaching base and the Phillies flipping the lead into their favor.

There is actually someone on the board who is obsessed with Mike Trout striking out for the last out of an 8-3 divisional game when they were already down 2 games to zero. This person acts is if they made some great discovery and then follows with inaccurate evaluative declarations. This person is sooo giddy about that event that he constantly posts pics about that.

So now in this thread we have an actual high pressure situation, the highest of Brett's career, and he failed miserably. So this string of photos will be forever posted.

In fact, in the highest of pressure games, the World Series, Brett has done nothing. He choked away the 1980 World Series right here. Then in 1985 he was invisible for six games and got four hits in the game 7 blowout when it was already in hand. He still only ended up with 1 RBI in that entire series.

So for everyone who goes around claiming Brett is some clutch God because he had a few big offensive moments in the ALCS, by using your own premise of it "only counting in the biggest moments" then Brett is NOT clutch because he did not come through in the biggest moments of the World Series where it trumps anything done in the LCS....and in his absolute biggest of moment of his career he pissed down his leg.

However, keep in mind that Brett had a few big hits in the LCS, and one would think those moments would lead to victories in those series...but Brett also gave away several games with key errors, costing them in 1976 and 1977 being a big reason why they didn't advance despite a few big hits.

So when people get on a soap box and tarnish Trout because he had .600 OPS in three divisional games, George Brett was rated as invisible to choker in two World Series....and in their own premise, nothing before the World Series even matters. So in their own method, the Countdouglas method, Brett was rendered moot.

I don't feel that way about Brett, but that way of evaluating players like they do, shows that Brett is moot.

daltex

I'm very confused, because your arguments about Brett, which you apparently disavow, don't make Trout look good, they just make it look as though you know nothing about baseball.

Is that the reputation you want?

1948_Swell_Robinson

@daltex said:
I'm very confused, because your arguments about Brett, which you apparently disavow, don't make Trout look good, they just make it look as though you know nothing about baseball.

Is that the reputation you want?

That is the Countdouglas method. Yes, I can see why you would get that impression because i am using the Countdouglas method of evaluating players...hence why it looks that way..

I have a lot more Countdouglas methods to tear down Brett...the same methods he uses to tear down Trout. Stay tuned for more because every time he uses his method to tear down Trout, the same will be used to tear down Brett.

I am simply following his blue print and applying it fairly across the board to other players and not jus one player.

Daltex, I know you are well versed in good evaluative methods...and I know I am as well.

But you should take a look at the statistical "volume method" that was done on Trout. I studied COuntdouglas's volume method he used to 'attempt' to tear down Trout. I applied that one to Brett too. It will make your eyes bleed seeing it, so I apologize in advance...but it is a doozy.

1948_Swell_Robinson

In the meantime, the look on this fans face as Brett choked away the 1980 World Series in in the pivotal game 5 shows he choked...

Brett was a paper tiger. When the game mattered most(the World Series), he pissed down his leg in the field and then compounded it in the bottom half of the 9th inning.

There was some idiotic post not too long ago about Trout not hitting a game changing home run where he flipped the score from a losing score to a winning score, since 2014. It was so idiotic because it actually ignored walk off home runs because the score was tied at the moment of the walk off home run.

So here in game five of the World Series, we get an example of that method where Brett went in with his team winning, and he pissed the lead away in the field. He flipped the score . Only this time, he had a chance to rectify his miscue but he struck out looking on three pitches in the absolute most pressure packed at bat of his career. The World Series hung in the balance.

So if Mike Trout is considered a 'paper tiger' by citing a .600 OPS in a mere 15 plate appearances in a divisional series that was lopsided, and IGNORING his other 5,000 plate appearances in the high leverage environment of MLB...then that means one at bat here by George Brett is far more damning than that because it occurred on the biggest stage at the biggest moment and he choked. Choked twice because he already pissed the lead away in the field in the top half.

So sample size is completely thrown out the window in both cases. Fair is fair.

Brett also was non existent in the 1985 World Series where he was out-hit by Buddy Biancalana. I've seen that method applied to Trout before too where you take a teammate and try and say they would be preferred by citing some unfounded invalid stat. Well, apply that to Brett too in the 1985 series where Brett was invisible for six games and padded his stats(another countdouglas criteria) in a game 7 blowout, and Buddy Biancalana was a more important player for that series.

Biancalana was one of many more important than Brett during the 1985 World Series, and in the countdougals method that renders Brett complete moot.

So in the end, the three or four big hits in the LCS that Brett had were already washed away by his poor fielding in those LCS.

However, it has been said by some that it only counts when it matters most, and the LCS is puny compared to the World Series.

The end judgement therefore says that Brett choked away the 1980 World Series as illustrated above...and that Brett was a non factor in their winning the 1985 World Series and that Buddy Biancalana was more important. .

These aren't my methods. I know the playoffs in baseball are a crapshoot for hitting. They are susceptible to the same hot and cold randomness that occurs every week in MLB. They do not mean clutch or not clutch.

But if someone is going to hang onto that clutch/not clutch notion for baseball hitters....

Then Brett falls into the not clutch because he could not do it on the biggest stage. . He choked.