@grote15 said:
A significant number of Rivera's appearances were longer than 1 inning in the postseason where it matters most. I've already detailed that data above but since it doesn't fit craig's narrative, he discounts it.
To add to what I already stated above, Rivera's postseason record consisted of 141 IP over 96 appearances with an ERA of 0.70, a WHIP of 0.75 and a K/BB ratio of 110 to 21.
I happen to agree that closers in general are not typically viable HOF candidates but like it or not, the role of the closer has been well established over the past 30 years and for a guy as dominant as Rivera was in that role, there's is no question he won't be a first ballot HOFer and rightfully so.
Ok, so he averaged 1 1/2 innings per appearance. Big deal. definitely not a hofer for me. I'm still far from impressed he is still a failed starter with one pitch. Any number of starters could do the same or better, just ask John smoltz. He became a transcendent closer with no experience. Can you imagine Pedro for two inning stints? He would have lasted longer and blown Rivera out of the water
So you're using two HOFers as a comparison to another future HOFer? LOL..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@craig44 said:
But riveras impact in those games was far far less than Pettittes impact. He pitched three outs in most games. To compare a closer to a good starter is laughable. It doesn't matter if those outs are in the ninth inning or the fourth. They are all worth the same.
You are correct in that comparing closers to starters is foolish. Players should be compared to similar players for any kind of reasonable answers.
Where I disagree is that "all outs are the same". The 8th and especially the 9th innings are the most important in "save situations". Your team has worked all game to get a lead, blowing it at the end wastes a starters good start and all the other players efforts. That's why teams have ALL decided to look for that 3 out pitcher to "save" the game.
The fact is, you need good starting, middle relief and a good closer to have a good pitching staff. If ANY one of these areas is lacking, the opponent will usually exploit it and you will lose a lot of games.
Having a good starter means little (with the decline of complete games) if you don't have guys to come in next and pitch well.
All outs are worth the exact same amount whether first or eighth inning. "Save situations" are all about context. Some games are lost in the third inning if the fifth starter is having a bad game and the offense is threatening to blow it open. In that context, the "closer" should be brought in then not saved for the ninth. There is nothing inherently special about the eighth or ninth inning.
Mathematically speaking yes, but everyone who has ever played sports knows that the games are not played on paper.
Your numbers and statistical analysis' are very informative, but there's simply more to sports than that.
A game cannot be "lost" in the third inning, there's more innings left to play. As a stat lover you should understand this.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
That is simply wrong. Many games are lost in the early innings. Pitcher gives up a grand slam and the offense can't get them back into the game. Happens relatively often in all sports. That is why they pull starters early, to rest players when there is little hope of victory.
If your argument is that Rivera is not close to being a HOF pitcher, you ought to be using non-HOFers for comparisons to make your point. Of course he will fall short in a comparison vs Smoltz or Martinez. No one here is claiming he was better than Smoltz or Martinez, the latter of whom is one of the greatest pitchers of all time.
Sometimes I think you post things just to stir the pot~which is fine on a sports message board, but just as you were dressed down by dallas on the Jeter thread, your assertions here are not terribly persuasive, or even compelling for that matter.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I posted a number of defensive metrics on the Jeter thread. Dallas either didn't read them or doesn't believe in the veracity of defensive statistics. It is safe to say the plurality of baseball analysts understand that Jeter was a very very bad SS. Dallas was trying to move the discussion away from jeters futility at ss to a discussion about free agency and player personnel.
I honestly am bored with that thread. It's going in circles at this point.
Isn't stirring the pot what talking sports is all about. It would be a very dull forum if everyone agreed on everything. This is very tame compared to other sports forums.
@craig44 said:
That is simply wrong. Many games are lost in the early innings. Pitcher gives up a grand slam and the offense can't get them back into the game. Happens relatively often in all sports. That is why they pull starters early, to rest players when there is little hope of victory.
Ridiculous. Games cannot be won until the bottom of 9th or later. Teams that score first usually have a higher probability of winning, but not always.
The team that is behind chances of winning get lower with each out they make as the game progresses, making each out more important until there are none left. Honestly as a stat guy, I would think this is obvious to you. The more opportunities you have to score the higher probability you will score.
Games are not played when they are over. You are taking the "look back" way of thinking. Games are played as they are being played. Sometimes I wonder if some of you stat guys ever played sports in your life.
I would much rather be behind with 27 outs remaining than 1.
As far as your Jeter defensive stats go, there have been several defensive stats posted that show he was NOT "historically bad", especially when compared to shortstops with above average hitting ability. No one here is saying he was Luis Aparicio in the field. His below average arm and range were more than made up for by his superior hitting.
By the way, I am still waiting to hear some evidence that Jeter refused to switch positions when Arod was acquired. You accuse others of ignoring things yet you haven't responded to this yet.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
gotta go with Joe on the "games lost" argument, and I think Craig understands the point, he's just being a difficult putz to win his stand. if games could be lost in the 3rd inning they would stop play and everyone could go home. the reality is that the game isn't over until the 9th inning unless it's tied. most fans understand and accept that those 9th inning outs, the ones made by the losing Team are quite often more difficult than the rest of the game.
to Craig's point of games being won early, when was the last time you saw a walk-off in the 3rd inning?? the answer is never in case you get confused.
If games can't be lost in early innings or early in games in other sports, then why do teams pull starters?
I will give you a hint. It is because the manager or coach realizes the game has for all intents and purposes been lost. It is better for the team to rest starters, regroup and get them Tomorrow. Happens relatively often.
If a team is down 11-2 after the fourth inning, for instance, the great majority of the time that game is lost. Most managers are pragmatic and will rest starters knowing that the game is lost and a comeback is unlikely.
to use the 3rd inning example from above and the 11-2 lead from Craig, managers aren't going to pull a starter from that game until after the 5th or 6th inning at the earliest, most often they let them get their work in. if you think they do it earlier you are deluding yourself and would need to show some stats to back up that BS position. it just doesn't happen.
@bronco2078 said:
craig doesn't care if he right or wrong he just likes to argue .
in other words, he fits in beautifully here
you can't convince him he is wrong because that would end the argument. Its a beautiful thing man because it goes to show that life is all about the journey not the destination.
@craig44 said:
And by the way, jeters lifetime rtot is -186 runs. That means he was 186 runs BELOW average in the field. That IS a historical level of futility.
I did a little investigating on Rtot. First of all, I am not a fan of subjective stats and this one doesn't seem to have a formula that gives me any idea of how it is calculated, so right away I hate it. For the sake of argument, let's say it has value.
Here's one thing I found; "The number 0 represents a defense neutral player who isn’t particularly good or bad. Plus or minus 5 trends towards the slightly above or below average. +/- 5-10 represents a pretty good or bad player, and +/- 10 or more represents an outstanding or awful player."
-189 is his lifetime total, so that actually makes it average year about -9.3, according to the above standards Jeter is a "pretty bad" to "awful" player. If you throw out his final year his average is -8.31, still bad, but now he falls into the "pretty bad" area.
Then I noticed something I thought was unusual;
Jeter's first year was -14 awful
2nd and 3rd years he improved to be a slightly below to a slightly above average defender. -3, +2
4th through 8th seasons he was on average a -16, again awful
seasons 9,10,11 he bounced back and was +5, -5 and -4 back to slightly above/slightly below average.
next -13 bad
next three -5, -1, -7 slightly below average
next two -12, -10 pretty bad
injured
final year -28 "historically" bad
I don't watch the Yankees so not knowing if he played hurt or what, I don't see how any player can have such huge swings in his defensive play. Bad rookie year, 2 years of average play, awful for 5 years, then average or slightly below for the next 7.
After 15 years he then finishes with two pretty bad years, hurt in 2013 and horrible final year.
Half his career he was slightly below average, one quarter he was pretty bad, and one quarter awful ("historically bad"?). Two times he managed to be a slightly better than average fielder.
Using your stat, he looks like a below average fielder, but only "awful" 4 times plus his final year.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
George Brett won batting titles in 3 decades and hit .390 one year. Yes, I am a biased Royals fan, but I saw them both and I will never be convinced that Schmidt was better. One of my best friends is a Phillies guy so we argue about this often. I always tell him the tiebreaker is Brett was a great teammate and Schmidt's teammates couldn't stand Mr. Grouchy.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
George Brett won batting titles in 3 decades and hit .390 one year. Yes, I am a biased Royals fan, but I saw them both and I will never be convinced that Schmidt was better. One of my best friends is a Phillies guy so we argue about this often. I always tell him the tiebreaker is Brett was a great teammate and Schmidt's teammates couldn't stand Mr. Grouchy.
You wanna argue Schmidt versus Brett, that's fine. But to state "Schmidt's teammates couldn't stand Mr. Grouchy" is pure bullfeathers.
Yes, Schmidt could be "grouchy" at times, what star athlete isn't, and at times Schmidt did receive a lot of boos from fans. But in any event, no teammate in their right mind is ever going to not want a HOF third baseman on their team.
Schmidt got along fine with the core base of players on that team, including all the broadcasters. Could there have been a player or two who couldn't stand him? Possibly, although I don't recall any player ever badmouthing Schmidt when he was active on the team.
You implied that most if not all of his teammates couldn't stand him and that is simply nonsense. You can correct me if I misinterpreted your comment, but I don't think I did.
And BTW, the tiebreaker if one is needed, is Schmidt's defense which was remarkable. He won 10, count 'em, 10 gold gloves.
I'm not an expert on Sabermetrics, but if there is a category of third basemen robbing hitters of a hit, Schmidt would no doubt be one of the tops in that category. Many batted balls that would have been hits against any normal third baseman, or would have been counted as errors, became outs with Mike Schmidt. Anything, and I do mean anything hit close to him, Schmidt would successfully field it.
here it is. if profanity offends you and/or you possess a dodgy stomach, don't click. if it doesn't and you don't, proceed to find out how the tiebreaker was settled.
George Brett won batting titles in 3 decades and hit .390 one year. Yes, I am a biased Royals fan, but I saw them both and I will never be convinced that Schmidt was better. One of my best friends is a Phillies guy so we argue about this often. I always tell him the tiebreaker is Brett was a great teammate and Schmidt's teammates couldn't stand Mr. Grouchy.
Yes, you are biased. George was a great hitter, but Mike was better in nearly every area of the game.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
here it is. if profanity offends you and/or you possess a dodgy stomach, don't click. if it doesn't and you don't, proceed to find out how the tiebreaker was settled.
George Brett won batting titles in 3 decades and hit .390 one year. Yes, I am a biased Royals fan, but I saw them both and I will never be convinced that Schmidt was better. One of my best friends is a Phillies guy so we argue about this often. I always tell him the tiebreaker is Brett was a great teammate and Schmidt's teammates couldn't stand Mr. Grouchy.
Yes, you are biased. George was a great hitter, but Mike was better in nearly every area of the game.
Nearly every area?
Brett's BA 38 points better than Schmidt.
900 more hits.
80 more runs
More RBIs (interesting since people argue that Schmidt was more durable)
Doubles: 665- 408
Triples: 137-59
Strikeouts: Schmidt 1883 Brett 908
Total Bases: Brett 600 more
XBH: Brett 100 more
In my view, Schmidt had greater power and was a better defender (Brett was a great glove but he did have more throwing errors). Brett was a better baserunner and a better overall hitter.
In the clutch, as can be seen from post-season numbers, Brett was simply better. Not that Schmidt was bad, it's just very few players can stand up to Brett's postseason numbers.
Anyway, it's a fun discussion and I have no proof that Schmidt wasn't beloved by teammates. But please don't try to argue that it wasn't close. The numbers above show otherwise.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
George Brett won batting titles in 3 decades and hit .390 one year. Yes, I am a biased Royals fan, but I saw them both and I will never be convinced that Schmidt was better. One of my best friends is a Phillies guy so we argue about this often. I always tell him the tiebreaker is Brett was a great teammate and Schmidt's teammates couldn't stand Mr. Grouchy.
Yes, you are biased. George was a great hitter, but Mike was better in nearly every area of the game.
Nearly every area?
Brett's BA 38 points better than Schmidt.
900 more hits.
80 more runs
More RBIs (interesting since people argue that Schmidt was more durable)
Doubles: 665- 408
Triples: 137-59
Strikeouts: Schmidt 1883 Brett 908
Total Bases: Brett 600 more
XBH: Brett 100 more
In my view, Schmidt had greater power and was a better defender (Brett was a great glove but he did have more throwing errors). Brett was a better baserunner and a better overall hitter.
In the clutch, as can be seen from post-season numbers, Brett was simply better. Not that Schmidt was bad, it's just very few players can stand up to Brett's postseason numbers.
Anyway, it's a fun discussion and I have no proof that Schmidt wasn't beloved by teammates. But please don't try to argue that it wasn't close. The numbers above show otherwise.
Nobody in their right mind would say that George Brett wasn't a damn good hitter. I can't recall the exact game, probably was a playoff or WS game, but he hit one of the most awesome HR's I've ever seen. It wasn't the total distance, it was the HR itself, a rope like I have never quite seen before or since. Off his bat it was perhaps only around 20 feet high, and it stayed that way to dead center field, went over the wall and clanged against something. It never lost any trajectory. Who knows how far this rope may have actually went if something wasn't there to stop it. Amazing power.
Along with his shot at that .400 BA season, you don't need to convince me that Brett was a great hitter. But Schmidt was a great hitter as well, not with the BA of Brett, but with more power, and as previously mentioned Schmidt's defense was spectacular.
Perhaps if it's first base, left field or right field, defense may not be any ultimate decider in a situation such as this. However for positions such as third base, shortstop, second base, and center field, defense is a major factor in winning baseball games.
So factoring EVERYTHING into the equation, and for third baseman everything must be factored in, the conclusion is crystal clear, Mike Schmidt is the greatest third baseman of all time, and it's really not that close.
George Brett won batting titles in 3 decades and hit .390 one year. Yes, I am a biased Royals fan, but I saw them both and I will never be convinced that Schmidt was better. One of my best friends is a Phillies guy so we argue about this often. I always tell him the tiebreaker is Brett was a great teammate and Schmidt's teammates couldn't stand Mr. Grouchy.
Yes, you are biased. George was a great hitter, but Mike was better in nearly every area of the game.
Nearly every area?
Brett's BA 38 points better than Schmidt.
900 more hits.
80 more runs
More RBIs (interesting since people argue that Schmidt was more durable)
Doubles: 665- 408
Triples: 137-59
Strikeouts: Schmidt 1883 Brett 908
Total Bases: Brett 600 more
XBH: Brett 100 more
In my view, Schmidt had greater power and was a better defender (Brett was a great glove but he did have more throwing errors). Brett was a better baserunner and a better overall hitter.
In the clutch, as can be seen from post-season numbers, Brett was simply better. Not that Schmidt was bad, it's just very few players can stand up to Brett's postseason numbers.
Anyway, it's a fun discussion and I have no proof that Schmidt wasn't beloved by teammates. But please don't try to argue that it wasn't close. The numbers above show otherwise.
Brett had almost 2,000 more at bats than Schmidt, so he should have higher total numbers.
Let's look at 162 game averages; Brett leads in Batting Average and Doubles, edge in Triples. Schmidt leads in Home Runs and Walks with an edge in Runs, RBI, SLG%, OPS and OPS+. I was a bit surprised to see they were equal as base stealers with 12 per year and 6 times being caught, they were almost equal in Total Bases per year with George having a very slight advantage. George was a lefty, so he had it a little easier as well.
Mike struck out a lot more, but sluggers usually do, since he also walked a lot more, his OB% ended up being higher, even with a lower BA, so that isn't really a negative to me.
Brett played in 128 games per year on average and Schmidt played in 133.
From 1974-1987 Schmidt was over .900 in OPS in all but 2 seasons and one of those was .890. from 1975-1990 Brett was below .900 10 times.
Schmidt was a better slugger and defender. Brett had a better BA, post season numbers, and a longer career.
Both great players, but overall a definite edge to Mike Schmidt, not saying it was a huge difference, but a clear win.
"Chipper" Jones might be better than BOTH of these guys!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
George Brett won batting titles in 3 decades and hit .390 one year. Yes, I am a biased Royals fan, but I saw them both and I will never be convinced that Schmidt was better. One of my best friends is a Phillies guy so we argue about this often. I always tell him the tiebreaker is Brett was a great teammate and Schmidt's teammates couldn't stand Mr. Grouchy.
Yes, you are biased. George was a great hitter, but Mike was better in nearly every area of the game.
Nearly every area?
Brett's BA 38 points better than Schmidt.
900 more hits.
80 more runs
More RBIs (interesting since people argue that Schmidt was more durable)
Doubles: 665- 408
Triples: 137-59
Strikeouts: Schmidt 1883 Brett 908
Total Bases: Brett 600 more
XBH: Brett 100 more
In my view, Schmidt had greater power and was a better defender (Brett was a great glove but he did have more throwing errors). Brett was a better baserunner and a better overall hitter.
In the clutch, as can be seen from post-season numbers, Brett was simply better. Not that Schmidt was bad, it's just very few players can stand up to Brett's postseason numbers.
Anyway, it's a fun discussion and I have no proof that Schmidt wasn't beloved by teammates. But please don't try to argue that it wasn't close. The numbers above show otherwise.
Brett had almost 2,000 more at bats than Schmidt, so he should have higher total numbers.
Let's look at 162 game averages; Brett leads in Batting Average and Doubles, edge in Triples. Schmidt leads in Home Runs and Walks with an edge in Runs, RBI, SLG%, OPS and OPS+. I was a bit surprised to see they were equal as base stealers with 12 per year and 6 times being caught, they were almost equal in Total Bases per year with George having a very slight advantage. George was a lefty, so he had it a little easier as well.
Mike struck out a lot more, but sluggers usually do, since he also walked a lot more, his OB% ended up being higher, even with a lower BA, so that isn't really a negative to me.
Brett played in 128 games per year on average and Schmidt played in 133.
From 1974-1987 Schmidt was over .900 in OPS in all but 2 seasons and one of those was .890. from 1975-1990 Brett was below .900 10 times.
Schmidt was a better slugger and defender. Brett had a better BA, post season numbers, and a longer career.
Both great players, but overall a definite edge to Mike Schmidt, not saying it was a huge difference, but a clear win.
"Chipper" Jones might be better than BOTH of these guys!
<<< "Chipper" Jones might be better than BOTH of these guys! >>>
It was kind of tongue in cheek BUT Chipper has the most Runs scored, highest OPS and SLG%, 2nd highest OB%, 2nd most RBI, 3rd most BB and HR 4th in 2B and 5th in AVG.
He looks like an average fielder?
Let's not forget Ed Mathews either!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
It was kind of tongue in cheek BUT Chipper has the most Runs scored, highest OPS and SLG%, 2nd highest OB%, 2nd most RBI, 3rd most BB and HR 4th in 2B and 5th in AVG.
He looks like an average fielder?
Let's not forget Ed Mathews either!
I actually think Chipper Jones is an underrated player even though he easily made it into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot. For years his batting performance was overshadowed by that great Atlanta Braves pitching staff.
It was kind of tongue in cheek BUT Chipper has the most Runs scored, highest OPS and SLG%, 2nd highest OB%, 2nd most RBI, 3rd most BB and HR 4th in 2B and 5th in AVG.
He looks like an average fielder?
Let's not forget Ed Mathews either!
I actually think Chipper Jones is an underrated player even though he easily made it into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot. For years his batting performance was overshadowed by that great Atlanta Braves pitching staff.
His name did not come to mind until I looked for Mathews' stats, but it's hard to argue with his hitting numbers!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
nice discussion. if the decision rests on who was the better fielder between Brett and Schmidt, with a consideration being that Brett's stats are bloated because he played more seasons, than it is logical that perhaps Brooks Robinson is the best 3rd baseman of all-time. he has the stats and awards for offense and based on fielding percentage at 3rd he is better than both.
what these things always come down to is who we like best.
@keets said:
nice discussion. if the decision rests on who was the better fielder between Brett and Schmidt, with a consideration being that Brett's stats are bloated because he played more seasons, than it is logical that perhaps Brooks Robinson is the best 3rd baseman of all-time. he has the stats and awards for offense and based on fielding percentage at 3rd he is better than both.
what these things always come down to is who we like best.
Robinson was the best defensively, but his hitting falls short to be the all time best.
I wouldn't use the term "bloated" but yes his numbers are higher because he played a couple more seasons.
I don't have a personal favorite, looks to me like Schmidt was a better offensive AND defensive player. I would take Mathews above Brett as well.
@keets said:
nice discussion. if the decision rests on who was the better fielder between Brett and Schmidt, with a consideration being that Brett's stats are bloated because he played more seasons, than it is logical that perhaps Brooks Robinson is the best 3rd baseman of all-time. he has the stats and awards for offense and based on fielding percentage at 3rd he is better than both.
what these things always come down to is who we like best.
Robinson was the best defensively, but his hitting falls short to be the all time best.
I wouldn't use the term "bloated" but yes his numbers are higher because he played a couple more seasons.
I don't have a personal favorite, looks to me like Schmidt was a better offensive AND defensive player. I would take Mathews above Brett as well.
While he's a liar and a cheater and I don't like him (though I rooted for him in pinstripes)...
...where does Alex Rodriguez land?
Ended up with more games at 3B than SS, I think, and had his best seasons at 3B (on HGH).
He was looking like not only the best SS/3B of all time, but possibly the best ballplayer of all time, but I don't consider him (or Bonds) to be worth discussing.
In my day (I'm OLD) you did your best and if the other guy was better, that was that. Things seem to be different for a lot of people now.
SAD!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
If you said Brett was the best hitting 3rd baseman off all time I could get on board. But, factor in the fact that Schmidt was head and shoulders better in the field the all time great nod goes to Mike (he was a monster at the plate as well obviously)
m
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......
@JoeBanzai said:
Stevek; no one is saying that George Brett wasn't a damn good hitter!
Of course not...in my own words i was trying to give Brett credit where credit is due for being a great hitter, and I think I did that...in order to make the point that despite that, Schmidt was still better overall.
imho, anyone who craps their britches and boasts about it should be included in any earnest and intelligent all-time best discourse, even if there's not a modicum of merit
Comments
So you're using two HOFers as a comparison to another future HOFer? LOL..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Who should I use in comparisons?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Mathematically speaking yes, but everyone who has ever played sports knows that the games are not played on paper.
Your numbers and statistical analysis' are very informative, but there's simply more to sports than that.
A game cannot be "lost" in the third inning, there's more innings left to play. As a stat lover you should understand this.
That is simply wrong. Many games are lost in the early innings. Pitcher gives up a grand slam and the offense can't get them back into the game. Happens relatively often in all sports. That is why they pull starters early, to rest players when there is little hope of victory.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
If your argument is that Rivera is not close to being a HOF pitcher, you ought to be using non-HOFers for comparisons to make your point. Of course he will fall short in a comparison vs Smoltz or Martinez. No one here is claiming he was better than Smoltz or Martinez, the latter of whom is one of the greatest pitchers of all time.
Sometimes I think you post things just to stir the pot~which is fine on a sports message board, but just as you were dressed down by dallas on the Jeter thread, your assertions here are not terribly persuasive, or even compelling for that matter.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I posted a number of defensive metrics on the Jeter thread. Dallas either didn't read them or doesn't believe in the veracity of defensive statistics. It is safe to say the plurality of baseball analysts understand that Jeter was a very very bad SS. Dallas was trying to move the discussion away from jeters futility at ss to a discussion about free agency and player personnel.
I honestly am bored with that thread. It's going in circles at this point.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Isn't stirring the pot what talking sports is all about. It would be a very dull forum if everyone agreed on everything. This is very tame compared to other sports forums.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Ridiculous. Games cannot be won until the bottom of 9th or later. Teams that score first usually have a higher probability of winning, but not always.
The team that is behind chances of winning get lower with each out they make as the game progresses, making each out more important until there are none left. Honestly as a stat guy, I would think this is obvious to you. The more opportunities you have to score the higher probability you will score.
Games are not played when they are over. You are taking the "look back" way of thinking. Games are played as they are being played. Sometimes I wonder if some of you stat guys ever played sports in your life.
I would much rather be behind with 27 outs remaining than 1.
As far as your Jeter defensive stats go, there have been several defensive stats posted that show he was NOT "historically bad", especially when compared to shortstops with above average hitting ability. No one here is saying he was Luis Aparicio in the field. His below average arm and range were more than made up for by his superior hitting.
By the way, I am still waiting to hear some evidence that Jeter refused to switch positions when Arod was acquired. You accuse others of ignoring things yet you haven't responded to this yet.
gotta go with Joe on the "games lost" argument, and I think Craig understands the point, he's just being a difficult putz to win his stand. if games could be lost in the 3rd inning they would stop play and everyone could go home. the reality is that the game isn't over until the 9th inning unless it's tied. most fans understand and accept that those 9th inning outs, the ones made by the losing Team are quite often more difficult than the rest of the game.
to Craig's point of games being won early, when was the last time you saw a walk-off in the 3rd inning?? the answer is never in case you get confused.
If games can't be lost in early innings or early in games in other sports, then why do teams pull starters?
I will give you a hint. It is because the manager or coach realizes the game has for all intents and purposes been lost. It is better for the team to rest starters, regroup and get them Tomorrow. Happens relatively often.
If a team is down 11-2 after the fourth inning, for instance, the great majority of the time that game is lost. Most managers are pragmatic and will rest starters knowing that the game is lost and a comeback is unlikely.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
And by the way, jeters lifetime rtot is -186 runs. That means he was 186 runs BELOW average in the field. That IS a historical level of futility.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
The answer to that is no.
to use the 3rd inning example from above and the 11-2 lead from Craig, managers aren't going to pull a starter from that game until after the 5th or 6th inning at the earliest, most often they let them get their work in. if you think they do it earlier you are deluding yourself and would need to show some stats to back up that BS position. it just doesn't happen.
craig doesn't care if he right or wrong he just likes to argue .
in other words, he fits in beautifully here
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
you can't convince him he is wrong because that would end the argument. Its a beautiful thing man because it goes to show that life is all about the journey not the destination.
One of my favorite Mariano Rivera memories was when he got his first RBI. It was in the game where he recorded his 500th save: a bases loaded walk!
I did a little investigating on Rtot. First of all, I am not a fan of subjective stats and this one doesn't seem to have a formula that gives me any idea of how it is calculated, so right away I hate it. For the sake of argument, let's say it has value.
Here's one thing I found; "The number 0 represents a defense neutral player who isn’t particularly good or bad. Plus or minus 5 trends towards the slightly above or below average. +/- 5-10 represents a pretty good or bad player, and +/- 10 or more represents an outstanding or awful player."
-189 is his lifetime total, so that actually makes it average year about -9.3, according to the above standards Jeter is a "pretty bad" to "awful" player. If you throw out his final year his average is -8.31, still bad, but now he falls into the "pretty bad" area.
Then I noticed something I thought was unusual;
Jeter's first year was -14 awful
2nd and 3rd years he improved to be a slightly below to a slightly above average defender. -3, +2
4th through 8th seasons he was on average a -16, again awful
seasons 9,10,11 he bounced back and was +5, -5 and -4 back to slightly above/slightly below average.
next -13 bad
next three -5, -1, -7 slightly below average
next two -12, -10 pretty bad
injured
final year -28 "historically" bad
I don't watch the Yankees so not knowing if he played hurt or what, I don't see how any player can have such huge swings in his defensive play. Bad rookie year, 2 years of average play, awful for 5 years, then average or slightly below for the next 7.
After 15 years he then finishes with two pretty bad years, hurt in 2013 and horrible final year.
Half his career he was slightly below average, one quarter he was pretty bad, and one quarter awful ("historically bad"?). Two times he managed to be a slightly better than average fielder.
Using your stat, he looks like a below average fielder, but only "awful" 4 times plus his final year.
Rogers Hornsby 2nd base?
George Brett won batting titles in 3 decades and hit .390 one year. Yes, I am a biased Royals fan, but I saw them both and I will never be convinced that Schmidt was better. One of my best friends is a Phillies guy so we argue about this often. I always tell him the tiebreaker is Brett was a great teammate and Schmidt's teammates couldn't stand Mr. Grouchy.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
You wanna argue Schmidt versus Brett, that's fine. But to state "Schmidt's teammates couldn't stand Mr. Grouchy" is pure bullfeathers.
Yes, Schmidt could be "grouchy" at times, what star athlete isn't, and at times Schmidt did receive a lot of boos from fans. But in any event, no teammate in their right mind is ever going to not want a HOF third baseman on their team.
Schmidt got along fine with the core base of players on that team, including all the broadcasters. Could there have been a player or two who couldn't stand him? Possibly, although I don't recall any player ever badmouthing Schmidt when he was active on the team.
You implied that most if not all of his teammates couldn't stand him and that is simply nonsense. You can correct me if I misinterpreted your comment, but I don't think I did.
And BTW, the tiebreaker if one is needed, is Schmidt's defense which was remarkable. He won 10, count 'em, 10 gold gloves.
I'm not an expert on Sabermetrics, but if there is a category of third basemen robbing hitters of a hit, Schmidt would no doubt be one of the tops in that category. Many batted balls that would have been hits against any normal third baseman, or would have been counted as errors, became outs with Mike Schmidt. Anything, and I do mean anything hit close to him, Schmidt would successfully field it.
here it is. if profanity offends you and/or you possess a dodgy stomach, don't click. if it doesn't and you don't, proceed to find out how the tiebreaker was settled.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=PseNrUeSmXk
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Yes, you are biased. George was a great hitter, but Mike was better in nearly every area of the game.
Nothing worse than eating tainted seafood. LOL
Nearly every area?
Brett's BA 38 points better than Schmidt.
900 more hits.
80 more runs
More RBIs (interesting since people argue that Schmidt was more durable)
Doubles: 665- 408
Triples: 137-59
Strikeouts: Schmidt 1883 Brett 908
Total Bases: Brett 600 more
XBH: Brett 100 more
Postseason even more in Brett's favor:
BA: Brett .337 Schmidt .275
OPS: Brett 1.023 Schmidt .798
HR: Brett: 10 Schmidt 4
RBI: Brett 41 Schmidt 16
In my view, Schmidt had greater power and was a better defender (Brett was a great glove but he did have more throwing errors). Brett was a better baserunner and a better overall hitter.
In the clutch, as can be seen from post-season numbers, Brett was simply better. Not that Schmidt was bad, it's just very few players can stand up to Brett's postseason numbers.
Anyway, it's a fun discussion and I have no proof that Schmidt wasn't beloved by teammates. But please don't try to argue that it wasn't close. The numbers above show otherwise.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
Nobody in their right mind would say that George Brett wasn't a damn good hitter. I can't recall the exact game, probably was a playoff or WS game, but he hit one of the most awesome HR's I've ever seen. It wasn't the total distance, it was the HR itself, a rope like I have never quite seen before or since. Off his bat it was perhaps only around 20 feet high, and it stayed that way to dead center field, went over the wall and clanged against something. It never lost any trajectory. Who knows how far this rope may have actually went if something wasn't there to stop it. Amazing power.
Along with his shot at that .400 BA season, you don't need to convince me that Brett was a great hitter. But Schmidt was a great hitter as well, not with the BA of Brett, but with more power, and as previously mentioned Schmidt's defense was spectacular.
Perhaps if it's first base, left field or right field, defense may not be any ultimate decider in a situation such as this. However for positions such as third base, shortstop, second base, and center field, defense is a major factor in winning baseball games.
So factoring EVERYTHING into the equation, and for third baseman everything must be factored in, the conclusion is crystal clear, Mike Schmidt is the greatest third baseman of all time, and it's really not that close.
Brett had almost 2,000 more at bats than Schmidt, so he should have higher total numbers.
Let's look at 162 game averages; Brett leads in Batting Average and Doubles, edge in Triples. Schmidt leads in Home Runs and Walks with an edge in Runs, RBI, SLG%, OPS and OPS+. I was a bit surprised to see they were equal as base stealers with 12 per year and 6 times being caught, they were almost equal in Total Bases per year with George having a very slight advantage. George was a lefty, so he had it a little easier as well.
Mike struck out a lot more, but sluggers usually do, since he also walked a lot more, his OB% ended up being higher, even with a lower BA, so that isn't really a negative to me.
Brett played in 128 games per year on average and Schmidt played in 133.
From 1974-1987 Schmidt was over .900 in OPS in all but 2 seasons and one of those was .890. from 1975-1990 Brett was below .900 10 times.
Schmidt was a better slugger and defender. Brett had a better BA, post season numbers, and a longer career.
Both great players, but overall a definite edge to Mike Schmidt, not saying it was a huge difference, but a clear win.
"Chipper" Jones might be better than BOTH of these guys!
Lou Gehrig 1st base.
Stevek; no one is saying that George Brett wasn't a damn good hitter!
<<< "Chipper" Jones might be better than BOTH of these guys! >>>
Ya had me until that.
It was kind of tongue in cheek BUT Chipper has the most Runs scored, highest OPS and SLG%, 2nd highest OB%, 2nd most RBI, 3rd most BB and HR 4th in 2B and 5th in AVG.
He looks like an average fielder?
Let's not forget Ed Mathews either!
I actually think Chipper Jones is an underrated player even though he easily made it into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot. For years his batting performance was overshadowed by that great Atlanta Braves pitching staff.
His name did not come to mind until I looked for Mathews' stats, but it's hard to argue with his hitting numbers!
nice discussion. if the decision rests on who was the better fielder between Brett and Schmidt, with a consideration being that Brett's stats are bloated because he played more seasons, than it is logical that perhaps Brooks Robinson is the best 3rd baseman of all-time. he has the stats and awards for offense and based on fielding percentage at 3rd he is better than both.
what these things always come down to is who we like best.
Just a quick addendum to the discussion?
Al Rosen - had the single greatest offensive season by any third baseman - all time - and was one of the best fielding 3rd basemen in the majors, too
A few different factors robbed him of a better career. Should be in the Hall anyway for total contributions to the game.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Robinson was the best defensively, but his hitting falls short to be the all time best.
I wouldn't use the term "bloated" but yes his numbers are higher because he played a couple more seasons.
I don't have a personal favorite, looks to me like Schmidt was a better offensive AND defensive player. I would take Mathews above Brett as well.
Rosen was great, but only played in 1044 games. Let's put him and Hodges in for being great players and for their contributions to the game!
Didn't mean he'd be a candidate for best all time - just that his MVP (unanimous!) season of 1953 is one worth looking up...
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/rosenal01.shtml
While he's a liar and a cheater and I don't like him (though I rooted for him in pinstripes)...
...where does Alex Rodriguez land?
Ended up with more games at 3B than SS, I think, and had his best seasons at 3B (on HGH).
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
He was looking like not only the best SS/3B of all time, but possibly the best ballplayer of all time, but I don't consider him (or Bonds) to be worth discussing.
In my day (I'm OLD) you did your best and if the other guy was better, that was that. Things seem to be different for a lot of people now.
SAD!
He was looking like not only the best SS/3B of all time, but possibly the best ballplayer of all time
that perception changed in a hurry when it became known he needed "help" to get there.
It sure did for me.
If you said Brett was the best hitting 3rd baseman off all time I could get on board. But, factor in the fact that Schmidt was head and shoulders better in the field the all time great nod goes to Mike (he was a monster at the plate as well obviously)
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......
Of course not...in my own words i was trying to give Brett credit where credit is due for being a great hitter, and I think I did that...in order to make the point that despite that, Schmidt was still better overall.
Hey, I'm trying to win a debate here.
imho, anyone who craps their britches and boasts about it should be included in any earnest and intelligent all-time best discourse, even if there's not a modicum of merit
as you were
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet