@Darin said:
How about a 2,500 hit video? No? 2,400.............. 2,300? Seriously, Schmidt didnt even get that many hits?
Oh yeah, he only had 2,234 career hits. I didn't realize a lowly .267 batting average got you such a paltry amount
of hits for someone whose supposed to be the best 3rd baseman of all time.
Just think, if he had Bretts' lofty .305 average Schmidt would have accumulated 313 more hits than he
actually did, bringing him past the 2,500 mark and a little respectability in the hits department.
Its kind of embarrasing for you to compare their hit totals, so keep posting the HR videos. After all,
Schmidt was kind of a one trick pony.
Yes, but the more significant stats, OBP% and OPS, both favor Schmidt, .380 to .369 and .908 to .857 (as well as OPS+ 147 to 135).
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.
Oh yeah, he only had 2,234 career hits. I didn't realize a lowly .267 batting average got you such a paltry amount
of hits for someone whose supposed to be the best 3rd baseman of all time.
And the greatest second baseman of all time hit .271 and the .297 hitting Mantle was a better hitter than all but, at most, two other players (neither of whom has 3,000 hits) in baseball history. But then, nobody who knows anything about such things cites batting averages (or hits LOL) when they are talking about offense because they are meaningless. Mike Schmidt got on base more often than Brett, and when they did get on base, Schmidt got further along the basepaths than Brett. The combination of those two things is what people who know about baseball call "hitting", and Mike Schmidt was a better hitter than George Brett. As third basemen, Schmidt was better than Brett, and for the chunk of his career that Brett didn't play third base he was a whole lot less valuable than Schmidt. This isn't a matter of comparing what Schmidt did better to what Brett did better and weighing and analyzing them to dig out the truth, because Schmidt did everything better than Brett. The margins aren't very big, but they accumulate to a difference that can't be missed by anyone who is looking, and who has a clue where to look.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
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......
@Darin said:
Post Schmidts' 3,000 hit video, wiseacre!
Yea, because a 3,000 hit video is as exciting as a 500 HR video. LOL
If Schmidt had played first base and been a cushy DH the last seven years of his career like Brett, then all of Schmidt's stats would have without a doubt been better.
BTW: Mantle didn't come close to 3,000 hits either.
Ted Williams never eclipsed 200 hits in a season, either, which is amazing when you come to think about it, but not surprising when you consider all the factors that come into play in making a great hitter as productive as he is.
I've got Ted Williams second on my all time greatest hitter list behind Ruth, then Mays at #3, and it pains me to say this because I can't stand the guy, Barry Bonds at #4.
The next six to round out the top ten is a very tough call, depending on the latest article or book I've read. LOL
@1970s said:
-Schmidt has a very SLIGHT advantage over Brett for 99% of their careers in every meaningful offensive and defensive statistic. Brett has a VERY SIGNIFICANT lead over Schmidt in the other 1% of their careers.
You're getting closer, but a 20% advantage in WPA is not "very slight", it is "conclusive". But more to the point, a point so blindingly obvious that I honestly don't understand how anyone with the ability to tie his own shoes could miss it, is that even a slight lead built over 99% of a career remains a lead no matter what happens in the other 1%.
The sun rises in the east, water is wet, and Schmidt was better than Brett. You've spent enough time on the last one; I think if you'd like to argue against either of the other two you'd embarrass yourself less.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I'm not quite sure why either of you would state that one guy is 'clearly' superior to the other when they are - as you both keep mentioning - very close.
They played in different leagues - this is not apples to apples. Stats will never make it apples to apples. It can't. It comes close and it's a good barometer.
However baseball is a GAME and it is to be watched live. I like to put it on his way - If you watched a baseball game and had no access or concept of stats, could you still tell who could play? That part of it still matters to me and I still think there are lots of players who are getting shortchanged because of the heavy emphasis on statistics...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
I'm not quite sure why either of you would state that one guy is 'clearly' superior to the other when they are - as you both keep mentioning - very close.
They played in different leagues - this is not apples to apples. Stats will never make it apples to apples. It can't. It comes close and it's a good barometer.
However baseball is a GAME and it is to be watched live. I like to put it on his way - If you watched a baseball game and had no access or concept of stats, could you still tell who could play? That part of it still matters to me and I still think there are lots of players who are getting shortchanged because of the heavy emphasis on statistics...
They were my two favorite players for a time. I always gave the slight edge to Schmidt. Both great
mark
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......
I remember the good old days in elementary school when guys like Rod Carew, Mike Schmidt, George Brett, Pete Rose, Carl Yastrzemski and Robin Yount type guys were all considered the best and nobody would argue it lol
@perkdog said:
I remember the good old days in elementary school when guys like Rod Carew, Mike Schmidt, George Brett, Pete Rose, Carl Yastrzemski and Robin Yount type guys were all considered the best and nobody would argue it lol
Yea, but in elementary school we didn't argue or fight over women either.
@1970s said:
Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Stan Musial, and George Brett belong to a special club.
All power hitters. None were as you say "streak hitters". That's why they call him the streak! LOL
When you say Schmidt was a "streak hitter", what you are saying was that he was very bad during long parts of the season, and postseason. The numbers prove that. The numbers also prove that Schmidt couldn't carry Brett's jock in the postseason, and they both were equal during the regular season.
I know it's hard to change one's mind, but the evidence clearly shows that Brett was a much more feared hitter then Schmidt, and both were equal in the field. Ask Steve Carlton how good George Brett was. LOL. Ask Ron Guidry. LOL.
Schmidt hit a nice .179 off of Nolan Ryan. LOL
Sorry George doesn't belong in that company.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
He may be in this "club", however he is nowhere near as good as these three as a baseball player. Not even close. Mays and Aaron's home run totals FAR outdistance George and Stan's OPS was 120 point higher.
1970s ARE you actually George Brett? You must be TOTALLY in love with him if you aren't.
I hadn't realized how many seasons George played 1B/DH. As long as we're including "part time" guys, I would take Killebrew over Brett as well as Schmidt and Matthews. ;-)
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1970s said:
I'll say it again. Brett and Schmidt were like equals during the regular season.
But no matter how often you repeat this false statement, it will remain false. It is this false assumption that causes all of your arguments to fail. I point that out for the benefit of those who will understand what I'm saying; it is not directed at you.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Both Schmidt and Brett had higher HOF vote percentages than Babe Ruth and Ted Williams.
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.
@1970s said:
George Brett is one of four players in MLB history to accumulate 3,000 hits, 300 home runs, and a career .300 batting average (the others being Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Stan Musial.)
Do you guys remember going to the dentist as a kid and they had the Highlights Magazine on the table? Towards the back of the magazine they had a page to pick out who or what doesn’t belong in this pictue. The statement above brought back that childhood memory
Hank Aaron 755 home runs
Willie Mays 660 home runs
Stan Musial 475 home runs
George Brett 317 home runs
When you average 15 home runs a season you are not a power hitter nor do you belong in this picture. Brett a great hitter but even he would be embarrassed by this non event. 300 homers puts him well outside of the top 100. The others were great power hitters who also hit for average. Brett hit for average but not not for power. Unless one thinks that one home run for every 36 plate appearances makes you a power hitter. If so you have a low bar.
Brett was great in his own right but let’s not make him into something he wasn’t.
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......
@1970s said:
George Brett is one of four players in MLB history to accumulate 3,000 hits, 300 home runs, and a career .300 batting average (the others being Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Stan Musial.)
Do you guys remember going to the dentist as a kid and they had the Highlights Magazine on the table? Towards the back of the magazine they had a page to pick out who or what doesn’t belong in this pictue. The statement above brought back that childhood memory
Hank Aaron 755 home runs
Willie Mays 660 home runs
Stan Musial 475 home runs
George Brett 317 home runs
When you average 15 home runs a season you are not a power hitter nor do you belong in this picture. Brett a great hitter but even he would be embarrassed by this non event. 300 homers puts him well outside of the top 100. The others were great power hitters who also hit for average. Brett hit for average but not not for power. Unless one thinks that one home run for every 36 plate appearances makes you a power hitter. If so you have a low bar.
Brett was great in his own right but let’s not make him into something he wasn’t.
m
It's interesting about Brett. He did have power if he wanted to use it. He was a strong guy.
I haven't heard Brett talk about this, but i have heard Pete Rose say about himself that he could have hit a lot more home runs during his career, but an attempt to do that would have negatively affected his batting average so he didn't do it. I think it's likely that Brett chose to do the same.
Which makes a guy such as Schmidt more valuable because he could hit for a relatively decent average, including getting a lot of walks, and yet hit all those home runs. Unless the game changed somehow and I didn't notice it, a home run is still the most lethal form of hit.
It's just speculation, but let's say that Brett decided to be a home run hitter. Likely he tried it in at least a few games. He then came to the conclusion that his batting average would suffer precipitously, and that he might become like say a Dave Kingman who bounced around with a number of teams during his career despite hitting 442 home runs.
It is crystal clear to those who understand MLB batters, that yes, Brett had better stats than Schmidt when it came to average, but Schmidt was a better hitter...and a much better fielder than George Brett. Which as I think i noted earlier, is why Schmidt is at the top of virtually every best all time third basemen list out there.
@1970s said:
George Brett is one of four players in MLB history to accumulate 3,000 hits, 300 home runs, and a career .300 batting average (the others being Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Stan Musial.)
Do you guys remember going to the dentist as a kid and they had the Highlights Magazine on the table? Towards the back of the magazine they had a page to pick out who or what doesn’t belong in this pictue. The statement above brought back that childhood memory
Hank Aaron 755 home runs
Willie Mays 660 home runs
Stan Musial 475 home runs
George Brett 317 home runs
When you average 15 home runs a season you are not a power hitter nor do you belong in this picture. Brett a great hitter but even he would be embarrassed by this non event. 300 homers puts him well outside of the top 100. The others were great power hitters who also hit for average. Brett hit for average but not not for power. Unless one thinks that one home run for every 36 plate appearances makes you a power hitter. If so you have a low bar.
Brett was great in his own right but let’s not make him into something he wasn’t.
m
justacommisioner- How about putting up their doubles totals? Brett hit more than Aaron or Mays.
Only Musial on that list hit more doubles than George.
Brett was 5th all time in doubles until that Astros player hung on way too long and passed him.
Brett also hit more than twice as many triples as Mike Schmidt did. And I'm pretty sure he stole more bases.
Just mentioning a few things because Dallasactuary stated that Schmidt did every thing better than Brett.
Brett was a better baserunner than Schmidt, because of those 665 doubles he hit, many could have been
singles that Brett, with his hustle, stretched into doubles.
Brett was better than Schmidt at getting extra base hits. Brett finished his career with over 100 more extra
base hits than Schmidt. That's odd? How did that happen.Brett staked him to a pretty good lead in the HR
department. But Brett still had 119 more extra base hits? Weird? Go ahead and look it up. Seems like contrary to what Dallas said, Brett actually did a lot of things better than Schmidt.
Won't even meniton how much better Brett was under playoff pressure than Schmidt, 1970's has done that enough.
But of course Schmidt backers gloss over that like it doesn't matter.LOL. Like how you perform under the
toughest of circumstances doesn't matter.
Darin, 1970’s didn’t list double in his “300 club” so I had no reason to even think about it. I was just responding to his post.
Doubles are the most common form of extra base hits. There are lots of great doubles hitters. Brett was certainly one of them
mark
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......
@Darin said:
Brett was better than Schmidt at getting extra base hits.
This is false.
Per 162 games, Brett hit 40 doubles, 8 triples, 19 homers; 67 extra base hits, total of 113 extra bases.
Per 162 games, Schmidt hit 27 doubles, 4 triples, 37 homers; 68 extra base hits, total of 146 extra bases.
Per 162 games, Brett got to first base (or further) 257 times, Schmidt 258 times.
Per 162 games, Brett grounded into 14 double plays, Schmidt 11.
For his career, Brett had an OPS of .886 with men on base, .891 with runners in scoring position; Schmidt had an OPS of .925 with men on base, .931 with runners in scoring position.
Their extra base hits, while similar in number, were not very similar in quality and this is where the gap between Brett and Schmidt is the largest. Everywhere else you look - getting on base, avoiding double plays, hitting when it matters most - the gaps are small, but Schmidt beats Brett at everything. There is no argument to be made that Brett was better than Schmidt, but bless all of your hearts, that doesn't seem to stop people from making them anyway.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1970s said:
George Brett is one of four players in MLB history to accumulate 3,000 hits, 300 home runs, and a career .300 batting average (the others being Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Stan Musial.)
Do you guys remember going to the dentist as a kid and they had the Highlights Magazine on the table? Towards the back of the magazine they had a page to pick out who or what doesn’t belong in this pictue. The statement above brought back that childhood memory
Hank Aaron 755 home runs
Willie Mays 660 home runs
Stan Musial 475 home runs
George Brett 317 home runs
When you average 15 home runs a season you are not a power hitter nor do you belong in this picture. Brett a great hitter but even he would be embarrassed by this non event. 300 homers puts him well outside of the top 100. The others were great power hitters who also hit for average. Brett hit for average but not not for power. Unless one thinks that one home run for every 36 plate appearances makes you a power hitter. If so you have a low bar.
Brett was great in his own right but let’s not make him into something he wasn’t.
m
Won't even meniton how much better Brett was under playoff pressure than Schmidt, 1970's has done that enough.
But of course Schmidt backers gloss over that like it doesn't matter.LOL. Like how you perform under the
toughest of circumstances doesn't matter.
Concur. That's like saying winning at queen's club is just as important as winning Wimbledon LOL.
To be fair though, Schmidt is a WS MVP.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
This discussion is like picking what Charlie’s Angel you would have wanted to hook up with in 1980. Everyone is a winner
mark
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......
Mark, I loved your reference to the Highlights magazines at the dentist office, I remember the pick out what doesn’t belong page but I was more of a Goofus and Gallant type of kid
Good grief we are actually going to debate which Charlie Angels is the GOAT aren’t we?
Put me down for Farrah.
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......
Comments
Yes, but the more significant stats, OBP% and OPS, both favor Schmidt, .380 to .369 and .908 to .857 (as well as OPS+ 147 to 135).
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.
And the greatest second baseman of all time hit .271 and the .297 hitting Mantle was a better hitter than all but, at most, two other players (neither of whom has 3,000 hits) in baseball history. But then, nobody who knows anything about such things cites batting averages (or hits LOL) when they are talking about offense because they are meaningless. Mike Schmidt got on base more often than Brett, and when they did get on base, Schmidt got further along the basepaths than Brett. The combination of those two things is what people who know about baseball call "hitting", and Mike Schmidt was a better hitter than George Brett. As third basemen, Schmidt was better than Brett, and for the chunk of his career that Brett didn't play third base he was a whole lot less valuable than Schmidt. This isn't a matter of comparing what Schmidt did better to what Brett did better and weighing and analyzing them to dig out the truth, because Schmidt did everything better than Brett. The margins aren't very big, but they accumulate to a difference that can't be missed by anyone who is looking, and who has a clue where to look.
Plus chicks dig the long ball
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......
I've got Ted Williams second on my all time greatest hitter list behind Ruth, then Mays at #3, and it pains me to say this because I can't stand the guy, Barry Bonds at #4.
The next six to round out the top ten is a very tough call, depending on the latest article or book I've read. LOL
The fact is that power hitters are streak hitters...always have been, always will be.
Mike Schmidt is the greatest third baseman of all time...and no amount of silly comments is going to change that.
In all fairness, i think the video about Brett's 3,000 hit needed to be posted:
Oops - LOL
You're getting closer, but a 20% advantage in WPA is not "very slight", it is "conclusive". But more to the point, a point so blindingly obvious that I honestly don't understand how anyone with the ability to tie his own shoes could miss it, is that even a slight lead built over 99% of a career remains a lead no matter what happens in the other 1%.
The sun rises in the east, water is wet, and Schmidt was better than Brett. You've spent enough time on the last one; I think if you'd like to argue against either of the other two you'd embarrass yourself less.
Dimeman sighting.
I'm not quite sure why either of you would state that one guy is 'clearly' superior to the other when they are - as you both keep mentioning - very close.
They played in different leagues - this is not apples to apples. Stats will never make it apples to apples. It can't. It comes close and it's a good barometer.
However baseball is a GAME and it is to be watched live. I like to put it on his way - If you watched a baseball game and had no access or concept of stats, could you still tell who could play? That part of it still matters to me and I still think there are lots of players who are getting shortchanged because of the heavy emphasis on statistics...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
They were my two favorite players for a time. I always gave the slight edge to Schmidt. Both great
mark
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......
I remember the good old days in elementary school when guys like Rod Carew, Mike Schmidt, George Brett, Pete Rose, Carl Yastrzemski and Robin Yount type guys were all considered the best and nobody would argue it lol
Yea, but in elementary school we didn't argue or fight over women either.
The hostess fruit pies though, were always in contest.
When that Good Humor ice cream truck rang the bell, i was like a Pavlov dog. LOL
Sorry George doesn't belong in that company.
He may be in this "club", however he is nowhere near as good as these three as a baseball player. Not even close. Mays and Aaron's home run totals FAR outdistance George and Stan's OPS was 120 point higher.
1970s ARE you actually George Brett? You must be TOTALLY in love with him if you aren't.
I hadn't realized how many seasons George played 1B/DH. As long as we're including "part time" guys, I would take Killebrew over Brett as well as Schmidt and Matthews. ;-)
But no matter how often you repeat this false statement, it will remain false. It is this false assumption that causes all of your arguments to fail. I point that out for the benefit of those who will understand what I'm saying; it is not directed at you.
Killebrew; first player to be named at All-Star three different positions=best ballplayer ever.
Actually, Eddie Gaedel was the best baseball player ever in MLB.
Gaedel retired with a lusty 1.000 OBP. That is correct, you read it right, every time Gaedel stepped to the plate, he got on base. Simply incredible.
He is the GOAT, and the stats prove it.
Both Schmidt and Brett had higher HOF vote percentages than Babe Ruth and Ted Williams.
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.
Reminds me of a book I read in H.S. "The Kid That Batted 1,000".
Do you guys remember going to the dentist as a kid and they had the Highlights Magazine on the table? Towards the back of the magazine they had a page to pick out who or what doesn’t belong in this pictue. The statement above brought back that childhood memory
Hank Aaron 755 home runs
Willie Mays 660 home runs
Stan Musial 475 home runs
George Brett 317 home runs
When you average 15 home runs a season you are not a power hitter nor do you belong in this picture. Brett a great hitter but even he would be embarrassed by this non event. 300 homers puts him well outside of the top 100. The others were great power hitters who also hit for average. Brett hit for average but not not for power. Unless one thinks that one home run for every 36 plate appearances makes you a power hitter. If so you have a low bar.
Brett was great in his own right but let’s not make him into something he wasn’t.
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......
Short career.
Are you saying that only a moron would use HOF vote percentages to measure player greatness? Sad that it needed to be said, but apparently it did.
It's interesting about Brett. He did have power if he wanted to use it. He was a strong guy.
I haven't heard Brett talk about this, but i have heard Pete Rose say about himself that he could have hit a lot more home runs during his career, but an attempt to do that would have negatively affected his batting average so he didn't do it. I think it's likely that Brett chose to do the same.
Which makes a guy such as Schmidt more valuable because he could hit for a relatively decent average, including getting a lot of walks, and yet hit all those home runs. Unless the game changed somehow and I didn't notice it, a home run is still the most lethal form of hit.
It's just speculation, but let's say that Brett decided to be a home run hitter. Likely he tried it in at least a few games. He then came to the conclusion that his batting average would suffer precipitously, and that he might become like say a Dave Kingman who bounced around with a number of teams during his career despite hitting 442 home runs.
It is crystal clear to those who understand MLB batters, that yes, Brett had better stats than Schmidt when it came to average, but Schmidt was a better hitter...and a much better fielder than George Brett. Which as I think i noted earlier, is why Schmidt is at the top of virtually every best all time third basemen list out there.
justacommisioner- How about putting up their doubles totals? Brett hit more than Aaron or Mays.
Only Musial on that list hit more doubles than George.
Brett was 5th all time in doubles until that Astros player hung on way too long and passed him.
Brett also hit more than twice as many triples as Mike Schmidt did. And I'm pretty sure he stole more bases.
Just mentioning a few things because Dallasactuary stated that Schmidt did every thing better than Brett.
Brett was a better baserunner than Schmidt, because of those 665 doubles he hit, many could have been
singles that Brett, with his hustle, stretched into doubles.
Brett was better than Schmidt at getting extra base hits. Brett finished his career with over 100 more extra
base hits than Schmidt. That's odd? How did that happen.Brett staked him to a pretty good lead in the HR
department. But Brett still had 119 more extra base hits? Weird? Go ahead and look it up. Seems like contrary to what Dallas said, Brett actually did a lot of things better than Schmidt.
Won't even meniton how much better Brett was under playoff pressure than Schmidt, 1970's has done that enough.
But of course Schmidt backers gloss over that like it doesn't matter.LOL. Like how you perform under the
toughest of circumstances doesn't matter.
It took Eddie around 10 minutes to jog to first base after that walk.
Darin, 1970’s didn’t list double in his “300 club” so I had no reason to even think about it. I was just responding to his post.
Doubles are the most common form of extra base hits. There are lots of great doubles hitters. Brett was certainly one of them
mark
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......
This is false.
Per 162 games, Brett hit 40 doubles, 8 triples, 19 homers; 67 extra base hits, total of 113 extra bases.
Per 162 games, Schmidt hit 27 doubles, 4 triples, 37 homers; 68 extra base hits, total of 146 extra bases.
Per 162 games, Brett got to first base (or further) 257 times, Schmidt 258 times.
Per 162 games, Brett grounded into 14 double plays, Schmidt 11.
For his career, Brett had an OPS of .886 with men on base, .891 with runners in scoring position; Schmidt had an OPS of .925 with men on base, .931 with runners in scoring position.
Their extra base hits, while similar in number, were not very similar in quality and this is where the gap between Brett and Schmidt is the largest. Everywhere else you look - getting on base, avoiding double plays, hitting when it matters most - the gaps are small, but Schmidt beats Brett at everything. There is no argument to be made that Brett was better than Schmidt, but bless all of your hearts, that doesn't seem to stop people from making them anyway.
How many players hit 390 in the last 60+ years?
I'll take Brett Over Schmidt any day.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Concur. That's like saying winning at queen's club is just as important as winning Wimbledon LOL.
To be fair though, Schmidt is a WS MVP.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
This discussion is like picking what Charlie’s Angel you would have wanted to hook up with in 1980. Everyone is a winner
mark
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......
Only one right choice.
Mark, I loved your reference to the Highlights magazines at the dentist office, I remember the pick out what doesn’t belong page but I was more of a Goofus and Gallant type of kid
Good grief we are actually going to debate which Charlie Angels is the GOAT aren’t we?
Put me down for Farrah.
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......
I’ll take Jaclyn Smith all day and twice on Sundays.
I'll take the blonde who replaced Farrah after the 1st season.
Kate Jackson was gorgeous when she played the nurse on The Rookies.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Paul of course is 100% right, and this shouldn't even be debatable.
