@Justacommeman said:
Good grief we are actually going to debate which Charlie Angels is the GOAT aren’t we?
Put me down for Farrah.
m
I'll take the blonde who replaced Farrah after the 1st season.
Kate Jackson was gorgeous when she played the nurse on The Rookies.
Cheryl Ladd —— I would rather get to third base with her then George Brett
m
Edited as hell that didn’t come out right
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......
Cheryl Ladd and I would rather get to third base with her over George Brett
m
If I ever meet any of you bastiges at a card show, i would be more than happy to talk some cards and sports with ya. However if you say that you prefer this guy over any of the angels, just don't ask me to go out with ya for a drink after the show. Okay?
@perkdog said:
Jaclyn Smith and Cheryl Ladd is comparable to a Mike Schmidt vs George Brett discussion, no matter who you take your winning.
If I ever had Jaclyn and Cheryl in a hot tub, the first thing I'd say to them is, "Girls, no need to fight over me, there's plenty of stevek for both of you." I've always been very kind and considerate in that way.
Of course the chances of that happening, are the exact same as me being named MVP of MLB this season.
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......
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.
1) If I see "crapped the bed" one more time I think I will scream!
rarely do i concur with 35-cent man, but i'm all-in on this. i read it so many times that i almost crapped the bed the other night. then i fell asleep and had a dream that george brett hit a home run against the phillies and when he reached third he stopped and started making out with mike schmidt
As long as no Cowboys are involved, it's possible, 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.
Brett was a much better (s)hitter and tells way better stories. While Schmidt only "crapped the bed" in the post season, Brett craps his pants twice a year.
@DIMEMAN said:
That's right I'm back. Here is my 35 cents (Dimeman who also collects Quarters) free of charge.
1) If I see "crapped the bed" one more time I think I will scream!
2) To say Dallasactuary doesn't know what he is talking about is silly.......keep up the good work DA.
3) Both men should be in the HOF and both men are!
4) Schmidt is a power hitter and Brett is a per centage hitter. DA explained why Schmidt is the better overall hitter.
5) If I had to chose which to play 3rd I would pick Schmidt because last I heard you want power from the corner players.
6) Neither one is the best 3rd Baseman....that would go to Brooks or Nettles.
7) Neither one is the best overall player ever......that would go to Mays with Williams, Mantle and Musual getting HM.
There you have it free of charge from the Dimeman....JMHO!
Not bad. I agree with 6 out of 7. Brooks and Nettles were better FIELDING 3rd baseman but overall Schmidt (then Mathews) was/were almost as good in the field, and much better offensively.
I love seeing someone mention Musial as one of the best ever!
Good comeback dman!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@DIMEMAN said:
That's right I'm back. Here is my 35 cents (Dimeman who also collects Quarters) free of charge.
1) If I see "crapped the bed" one more time I think I will scream!
2) To say Dallasactuary doesn't know what he is talking about is silly.......keep up the good work DA.
3) Both men should be in the HOF and both men are!
4) Schmidt is a power hitter and Brett is a per centage hitter. DA explained why Schmidt is the better overall hitter.
5) If I had to chose which to play 3rd I would pick Schmidt because last I heard you want power from the corner players.
6) Neither one is the best 3rd Baseman....that would go to Brooks or Nettles.
7) Neither one is the best overall player ever......that would go to Mays with Williams, Mantle and Musual getting HM.
There you have it free of charge from the Dimeman....JMHO!
Not bad. I agree with 6 out of 7. Brooks and Nettles were better FIELDING 3rd baseman but overall Schmidt (then Mathews) was/were almost as good in the field, and much better offensively.
I love seeing someone mention Musial as one of the best ever!
Good comeback dman!
That's what I meant on #6.....defense only. And yes, Musial was a great player. Living close to STL I got to see him in person when I was a kid.
@DIMEMAN said:
That's right I'm back. Here is my 35 cents (Dimeman who also collects Quarters) free of charge.
1) If I see "crapped the bed" one more time I think I will scream!
2) To say Dallasactuary doesn't know what he is talking about is silly.......keep up the good work DA.
3) Both men should be in the HOF and both men are!
4) Schmidt is a power hitter and Brett is a per centage hitter. DA explained why Schmidt is the better overall hitter.
5) If I had to chose which to play 3rd I would pick Schmidt because last I heard you want power from the corner players.
6) Neither one is the best 3rd Baseman....that would go to Brooks or Nettles.
7) Neither one is the best overall player ever......that would go to Mays with Williams, Mantle and Musual getting HM.
There you have it free of charge from the Dimeman....JMHO!
Not bad. I agree with 6 out of 7. Brooks and Nettles were better FIELDING 3rd baseman but overall Schmidt (then Mathews) was/were almost as good in the field, and much better offensively.
I love seeing someone mention Musial as one of the best ever!
Good comeback dman!
That's what I meant on #6.....defense only. And yes, Musial was a great player. Living close to STL I got to see him in person when I was a kid.
Point taken on #6 and their great defense isn't possible to argue against.
That being said, I watched many hundreds of Phillies games with Schmidt at third base, and I'm telling ya, the guy was like a vacuum cleaner out there. One thing he did perhaps better than any third baseman I can think of is cover the bunt. He wasn't the quickest third baseman out there, but he had some sort of innate ability to get a jump on a bunt and make the right play. A number of times on a sacrifice bunt, he would grab the bunt and throw the lead runner out at second base. I saw this countless times. He rarely made a mistake or a throwing error, and when he got to the ball he rarely bobbled it or anything such as that. Plays that the scorer would rule a hit for most third baseman because they couldn't make the play or they fumbled the ball but it was a tough play so the scorer didn't give them an error...well Schmidt would make those plays for outs, time and time again. These are facts that stats will not show, but is further proof why those who watched him play, despite Brett's better offense in some categories, clearly rate Schmidt as the best third baseman of all time.
@DIMEMAN said:
That's right I'm back. Here is my 35 cents (Dimeman who also collects Quarters) free of charge.
1) If I see "crapped the bed" one more time I think I will scream!
2) To say Dallasactuary doesn't know what he is talking about is silly.......keep up the good work DA.
3) Both men should be in the HOF and both men are!
4) Schmidt is a power hitter and Brett is a per centage hitter. DA explained why Schmidt is the better overall hitter.
5) If I had to chose which to play 3rd I would pick Schmidt because last I heard you want power from the corner players.
6) Neither one is the best 3rd Baseman....that would go to Brooks or Nettles.
7) Neither one is the best overall player ever......that would go to Mays with Williams, Mantle and Musual getting HM.
There you have it free of charge from the Dimeman....JMHO!
Not bad. I agree with 6 out of 7. Brooks and Nettles were better FIELDING 3rd baseman but overall Schmidt (then Mathews) was/were almost as good in the field, and much better offensively.
I love seeing someone mention Musial as one of the best ever!
Good comeback dman!
That's what I meant on #6.....defense only. And yes, Musial was a great player. Living close to STL I got to see him in person when I was a kid.
Point taken on #6 and their great defense isn't possible to argue against.
That being said, I watched many hundreds of Phillies games with Schmidt at third base, and I'm telling ya, the guy was like a vacuum cleaner out there. One thing he did perhaps better than any third baseman I can think of is cover the bunt. He wasn't the quickest third baseman out there, but he had some sort of innate ability to get a jump on a bunt and make the right play. A number of times on a sacrifice bunt, he would grab the bunt and throw the lead runner out at second base. I saw this countless times. He rarely made a mistake or a throwing error, and when he got to the ball he rarely bobbled it or anything such as that. Plays that the scorer would rule a hit for most third baseman because they couldn't make the play or they fumbled the ball but it was a tough play so the scorer didn't give them an error...well Schmidt would make those plays for outs, time and time again. These are facts that stats will not show, but is further proof why those who watched him play, despite Brett's better offense in some categories, clearly rate Schmidt as the best third baseman of all time.
Sometime guys do things that don't show up on a stat sheet.
I used to be amazed at how Justin Morneau went from first to third on singles, for a big man he was amazing! His 2010 season was going to be EPIC until he was injured.> @DIMEMAN said:
@DIMEMAN said:
That's right I'm back. Here is my 35 cents (Dimeman who also collects Quarters) free of charge.
1) If I see "crapped the bed" one more time I think I will scream!
2) To say Dallasactuary doesn't know what he is talking about is silly.......keep up the good work DA.
3) Both men should be in the HOF and both men are!
4) Schmidt is a power hitter and Brett is a per centage hitter. DA explained why Schmidt is the better overall hitter.
5) If I had to chose which to play 3rd I would pick Schmidt because last I heard you want power from the corner players.
6) Neither one is the best 3rd Baseman....that would go to Brooks or Nettles.
7) Neither one is the best overall player ever......that would go to Mays with Williams, Mantle and Musual getting HM.
There you have it free of charge from the Dimeman....JMHO!
Not bad. I agree with 6 out of 7. Brooks and Nettles were better FIELDING 3rd baseman but overall Schmidt (then Mathews) was/were almost as good in the field, and much better offensively.
I love seeing someone mention Musial as one of the best ever!
Good comeback dman!
That's what I meant on #6.....defense only. And yes, Musial was a great player. Living close to STL I got to see him in person when I was a kid.
Point taken on #6 and their great defense isn't possible to argue against.
That being said, I watched many hundreds of Phillies games with Schmidt at third base, and I'm telling ya, the guy was like a vacuum cleaner out there. One thing he did perhaps better than any third baseman I can think of is cover the bunt. He wasn't the quickest third baseman out there, but he had some sort of innate ability to get a jump on a bunt and make the right play. A number of times on a sacrifice bunt, he would grab the bunt and throw the lead runner out at second base. I saw this countless times. He rarely made a mistake or a throwing error, and when he got to the ball he rarely bobbled it or anything such as that. Plays that the scorer would rule a hit for most third baseman because they couldn't make the play or they fumbled the ball but it was a tough play so the scorer didn't give them an error...well Schmidt would make those plays for outs, time and time again. These are facts that stats will not show, but is further proof why those who watched him play, despite Brett's better offense in some categories, clearly rate Schmidt as the best third baseman of all time.
Sometime guys do things that don't show up on a stat sheet.
I used to be amazed at how Justin Morneau went from first to third on singles, for a big man he was amazing! His 2010 season was going to be EPIC until he was injured.> @DIMEMAN said:
These are facts that stats will not show, but is further proof why those who watched him play, despite Brett's better offense in some categories, clearly rate Schmidt as the best third baseman of all time.
Schmidt was a great defensive third baseman. I enjoyed watching him turn the double play with that side arm/underhand throw to 2nd base. That is not an easy throw. It's easier to throw it overhand.
Having said that, one could easily say the same thing about Nettles. He robbed many people of doubles down the line, and singles to left. Brett did as well. Schmidt's agility was no better then theirs. Nettles wasn't even quick. He lifetime stolen base numbers are bad. Brett's stolen base numbers are a little better then Schmidt. Brett was just as quick in his first step as Schmidt, and both were quicker then Nettles.
We can only go on what we saw. The numbers tell us that Schmidt and Brett have pretty identical fielding numbers (.955 to 950). We see their regular season numbers give a slight edge to Schmidt. However, I did watch both Schmidt and Brett in very meaningful games, that some don't take as highly as I do, and Schmidt just doesn't compare to Brett in that category, except for that one great series against the Royals. Just imagine Schmidt's all time postseason numbers if he didn't have that.
George Brett was like a David Ortiz in the postseason. He would lift a team on his back and carry them. Mike Schmidt was just another out in the postseason, outside of one series. It's almost like comparing David Ortiz in the postseason to Alex Rodriguez, and Schmidt was even worse in the postseason then Arod was.
I have to agree with some of this post. Both Brett and Schmidt were fine defensive players.
I like your Fielding % argument over the GG "factor". Schmidt's GG's were nice, but Buddy Bell was winning that award in the AL and then Gary Gaetti. Neither of these guys are great hitters like George. Had these guys played in NL....who knows? But they didn't.
The base stealing numbers are IDENTICLE. Each guy stole 12 bases a year and was caught 6 times. I don't see any advantage here for either player. Schmidt stole 29 one year but was caught 12 times, Mike appeared to stop running almost completely his last 6 years while George ran more at the end of his career. He should have stopped before his last two years but it looks like he wanted the 200 SB.
I completely agree with you if you want to decide who's "Easily the best 3rd baseman of all time" by post season numbers..............then Brett was better than Schmidt.
Both players had over 10,000 regular season PA, George had 184 and Mike had 158 post season PA respectively.
The rest of us are going to base the opinion more on the regular season, only using the post season if the two players are virtually tied, which in this case they are not.
Brett also played about 2 years longer than Schmidt, so when you bring up career totals you aren't being fair. You could also say that George was an average player accumulating numbers his last three seasons, while Mike quit after about 1 1/4, he was not willing to be an average player.
On who was the better hitter, Home Runs are MUCH more valuable than doubles. If it boils down to one number in two similar hitters, look at SLG%.............It's a narrow, but clear win for Mike, with Eddie Mathews (not as good in post season as George either) just edging George for 2nd place. Not that would be a better debate!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1970s said:
Now that we've proven that Brett was the best all time third baseman, I guess we should discuss what's really important. Was the Philly Fanatic better then the San Diego Chicken ?
I don't see where we have proven that Brett was the best all time third baseman. But you sure have yourself convinced.
@1970s said:
Here's a question for those of you who say Schmidt had a greater lifetime OPS then Brett.
Schmidt retired with a lifetime .908 OPS. Brett retired with a lifetime .857 OPS
Advantage Schmidt. We all know Mike was a better power hitter. No doubting that.
However, in his career Schmidt had 13 seasons with an OPS above .800
Brett had 15 seasons with an OPS above .800 (and he only had 1 in his last 5 seasons when he DH'ed as he was getting older).
George Brett's best two OPS seasons were 1,118 and 1,022
Schmidt's best two OPS seasons were 1,080 and 1,004
The only times both of them were above the 1,000 mark.
And Brett's CAREER postseason OPS is 1,023 To put that in perspective, David Ortiz's lifetime OPS in the postseason is .947. Schmidt's is .690, which is pretty much AAA level.
So Brett ended up giving his club 2 more seasons with an OPS above .800 then Schmidt gave his club. Even though Schmidt's OPS was slightly better, Brett still was able to drive in more runs, albeit by 1.
No one seems to be arguing about post season numbers, so I don't know why you keep repeating them.
Brett drove in more runs because he had MANY MANY more opportunities than Schmidt.
Brett had the best single season, but Schmidt had the better average OPS over their careers. .908 vs. .857 is not huge but it shows Mike was a little better. It IS very close, but George is no higher than #3. That's fantastic!
George, you were a GREAT hitter! Just not the best all time at 3B.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1970s said:
Oh yeah, for you OPS+ people, Gene Tenace had a better career OPS+ then George Brett, and John Kruk was 1 point lower then Brett. LOL. Great stat. LOL.
I never bring up made up numbers. Some like them, I do not.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1970s said:
Now that we've proven that Brett was the best all time third baseman, I guess we should discuss what's really important. Was the Philly Fanatic better then the San Diego Chicken ?
I don't see where we have proven that Brett was the best all time third baseman. But you sure have yourself convinced.
Possibly all the Schmidt supporters crapped the thread?
I know dallas actuary did when he said Schmidt did everything better than Brett.
Career batting average- Brett, .305 Schmidt, .269
But of course batting average isn't important to dallas, so that stat doesn't count.
Its important to everyone who ever played the game, but not the dallas nerd.
@1970s said:
Now that we've proven that Brett was the best all time third baseman, I guess we should discuss what's really important. Was the Philly Fanatic better then the San Diego Chicken ?
I don't see where we have proven that Brett was the best all time third baseman. But you sure have yourself convinced.
Possibly all the Schmidt supporters crapped the thread?
I know dallas actuary did when he said Schmidt did everything better than Brett.
Career batting average- Brett, .305 Schmidt, .269
But of course batting average isn't important to dallas, so that stat doesn't count.
Its important to everyone who ever played the game, but not the dallas nerd.
Batting average is a great way to measure a batters ability, so is SLG% and OPS. Schmidt wins 2 of the three.
HR frequency (especially for corner players) is another great way to measure value. Schmidt hit a home run every 15.24 times at bat Brett every 32.64.
Looks more like I am the only one left trying to help you Brett fans understand he was GREAT but not quite the best. I am going to give up now too.
Have a nice evening everyone!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Darin is a diehard Royals fan so it's really no surprise that he is the only person in this thread besides the OP that considers Brett better than Schmidt.
That's not a knock against him but simply a fact. I consider Tom Seaver to be the best pitcher of all time, too.
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:
Now that we've proven that Brett was the best all time third baseman, I guess we should discuss what's really important. Was the Philly Fanatic better then the San Diego Chicken ?
I don't see where we have proven that Brett was the best all time third baseman. But you sure have yourself convinced.
Because he didn’t. But he believes if he says it enough times it will stick. There is a lot of that going on these days
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......
@grote15 said:
Darin is a diehard Royals fan so it's really no surprise that he is the only person in this thread besides the OP that considers Brett better than Schmidt.
That's not a knock against him but simply a fact. I consider Tom Seaver to be the best pitcher of all time, too.
If it wasn't for his catcher when he was with the Mets, Seaver wouldn't have been nuttin.
@grote15 said:
Darin is a diehard Royals fan so it's really no surprise that he is the only person in this thread besides the OP that considers Brett better than Schmidt.
That's not a knock against him but simply a fact. I consider Tom Seaver to be the best pitcher of all time, too.
If it wasn't for his catcher when he was with the Mets, Seaver wouldn't have been nuttin.
For a Philly fan, you're not so bad after all, 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.
@grote15 said:
Darin is a diehard Royals fan so it's really no surprise that he is the only person in this thread besides the OP that considers Brett better than Schmidt.
That's not a knock against him but simply a fact. I consider Tom Seaver to be the best pitcher of all time, too.
If it wasn't for his catcher when he was with the Mets, Seaver wouldn't have been nuttin.
For a Philly fan, you're not so bad after all, lol..
Johnny Bench, quote, “If Jerry Grote were on my team, I'd be playing third base.”
@grote15 said:
Darin is a diehard Royals fan so it's really no surprise that he is the only person in this thread besides the OP that considers Brett better than Schmidt.
That's not a knock against him but simply a fact. I consider Tom Seaver to be the best pitcher of all time, too.
If it wasn't for his catcher when he was with the Mets, Seaver wouldn't have been nuttin.
For a Philly fan, you're not so bad after all, lol..
Johnny Bench, quote, “If Jerry Grote were on my team, I'd be playing third base.”
Speaking of Bench. He was the best all around catcher ever!
@grote15 said:
Darin is a diehard Royals fan so it's really no surprise that he is the only person in this thread besides the OP that considers Brett better than Schmidt.
That's not a knock against him but simply a fact. I consider Tom Seaver to be the best pitcher of all time, too.
I'm really just trying to make a point. Dallas said Schmidt did EVERYTHING better than Brett, and that
simply is not true. Brett was better at a lot of things. And I stick to my arguement that Brett ran the bases better also,
because I saw a lot of the Royals games and Brett turned many singles into doubles just by pure hustle, as did
Hal McCrae.
Brett - better at hitting for high average, better at hitting doubles, better at hitting triples, better baserunner,
better under pressure(playoff stats prove this), much better at putting the ball in play vs. striking out.
Just to name a few.
Maybe Brett wasn't better than Schmidt overall, but he did do some things better so Dallas actuary is
completely wrong and isn't the baseball expert he pretends to be.
Part of Bretts greatness is that he could do things Schmidt and his contemporaries could never dream of
doing, like have more home runs than strikeouts, which Brett did in 1980 with a very respectable 24 homers
and 22 strikeouts. Who only strikes out 22 times a season these days? And Schmidt never hit over 20 doubles,
triples, and home runs in a season either. Only Brett, Mays and a few others do that.
So I may not really be arguing Brett is better overall than Schmidt, although the Royals wouldn't have
won nearly as many games if Schmidt was on the team instead of Brett, because we had to have a guy who
could produce under pressure since we had very little firepower besides Brett, unlike the star packed Phillies teams.
Wait a minute, Brett was a lot better than Schmidt after all, I guess it was pretty easy to convince myself.
@JoeBanzai said:
Maybe Brett wasn't better than Schmidt overall, but he did do some things better so Dallas actuary is
completely wrong and isn't the baseball expert he pretends to be.
What I was saying was that Schmidt hit for more power, got on base more, ground into fewer double plays and hit better in key situations (those four things cover hitting), and Schmidt was a better fielder. As such, he was better at "everything". There is also the question of baserunning, and if either one of them was measurably better than the other I don't see it, so I ignored that. But if you'd like to hang your hat on whatever microdifference exists there and declare Brett the winner, I won't bother arguing the point because the silliness of caring about that microdifference pales in comparison to the silliness of thinking Brett was better than Schmidt overall, and you got the big question right (or would, if you'd drop that silly "maybe").
If the misunderstanding of what I meant by "everything" was that you thought I meant literally "everything", then my long posts would have be ridiculously long if I have to spell out what ought to be freaking obvious. For the sanity of the people who don't require their hands held in a baseball discussion, however, I will continue to refer to "everything that matters" as "everything".
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Schmidt was one of the best. However, a 390 post 1980 season, and a member of the 3000/300/300 club are more amazing and impressive than anything Schmidt accomplished.
Brett is also the only player in history to accumulate more than 3,000 hits, 300 home runs, 600 doubles, 100 triples, 1,500 RBI and 200 stolen bases.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
@JoeBanzai said:
Maybe Brett wasn't better than Schmidt overall, but he did do some things better so Dallas actuary is
completely wrong and isn't the baseball expert he pretends to be.
I did not say the above, just to be clear. I have had some spirited debates with Dallas and would never be foolish enough to say he was "completely wrong" about baseball analysis.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@garnettstyle said:
Schmidt was one of the best. However, a 390 post 1980 season, and a member of the 3000/300/300 club are more amazing and impressive than anything Schmidt accomplished.
Brett is also the only player in history to accumulate more than 3,000 hits, 300 home runs, 600 doubles, 100 triples, 1,500 RBI and 200 stolen bases.
Garnettsyle - a very intelligent man, and wise beyond his years.
Comparing Schmidt to Brett is a little like comparing David Ortiz to Alex Rodriguez. Yes, Alex put up slightly better regular season totals lifetime, but Papi put up MUCH better postseason totals. NY fans had a love\hate relationship with AROD, because he pooped his pants when the team needed him to win championships. Papi is beloved in Boston, very popular, and carried that team on his back when it counted the most. Fans had a love/hate relationship with Schmidt too, so much so that Schmidt went after them in the press, and he wore a wig and sunglasses out on the field once to disguise himself from his booing fans. Like Schmidt, AROD heard the boos too from his fans. Brett was adored by his fans because of what Garnettstyle just posted up there, plus he beat the crap out of solid pitching in the postseason. Something Michael Crap Schmidt could not do.
Hold on here , If I had to choose whether I wanted either AROD or Ortiz straight up I'd pick AROD , Ortiz is only half a player , he literally naps in the dugout for half of every game.
I will say I like them together in the broadcasting booth
Comments
Was that Cheryl Ladd?
I forget if Cheryl replaced Farrah or vice versa.
Despite the eye candy on the show, I think I may have watched it one time, maybe two at the most.
When i first saw the pic, I thought it was a photo of George Brett.
Come on now...it's just a joke. LOL
Cheryl Ladd —— I would rather get to third base with her then George Brett
m
Edited as hell that didn’t come out right
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......
Jaclyn Smith and Cheryl Ladd is comparable to a Mike Schmidt vs George Brett discussion, no matter who you take your winning.
If I ever meet any of you bastiges at a card show, i would be more than happy to talk some cards and sports with ya. However if you say that you prefer this guy over any of the angels, just don't ask me to go out with ya for a drink after the show. Okay?
Hahahahahahaha I’m with Steve 1000%
If I ever had Jaclyn and Cheryl in a hot tub, the first thing I'd say to them is, "Girls, no need to fight over me, there's plenty of stevek for both of you." I've always been very kind and considerate in that way.
Of course the chances of that happening, are the exact same as me being named MVP of MLB this season.
That's right I'm back. Here is my 35 cents (Dimeman who also collects Quarters) free of charge.
1) If I see "crapped the bed" one more time I think I will scream!
2) To say Dallasactuary doesn't know what he is talking about is silly.......keep up the good work DA.
3) Both men should be in the HOF and both men are!
4) Schmidt is a power hitter and Brett is a per centage hitter. DA explained why Schmidt is the better overall hitter.
5) If I had to chose which to play 3rd I would pick Schmidt because last I heard you want power from the corner players.
6) Neither one is the best 3rd Baseman....that would go to Brooks or Nettles.
7) Neither one is the best overall player ever......that would go to Mays with Williams, Mantle and Musual getting HM.
There you have it free of charge from the Dimeman....JMHO!
See...I told everybody that a Charlie's Angels discussion would get Dimeman back.
Jon...i hope Charlie (your dog) is doing well.
At least none of them are covered in pine tar.
Glad to see Dime back!
Me too! He even got a few of those right
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 even agree with him this time, LOL..> @Justacommeman said:
+1
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.
rarely do i concur with 35-cent man, but i'm all-in on this. i read it so many times that i almost crapped the bed the other night. then i fell asleep and had a dream that george brett hit a home run against the phillies and when he reached third he stopped and started making out with mike schmidt
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
I like Dimeman.....
.....just as long as he never says anything good about the stinkin' Dallas Cowboys.
Thanks Mark......I tried to be objective.
As long as no Cowboys are involved, it's possible, 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.
Brett was a much better (s)hitter and tells way better stories. While Schmidt only "crapped the bed" in the post season, Brett craps his pants twice a year.
I used to do that often, throughout the day, it was horrible.
Of course I was only a few weeks old at the time.
Not bad. I agree with 6 out of 7. Brooks and Nettles were better FIELDING 3rd baseman but overall Schmidt (then Mathews) was/were almost as good in the field, and much better offensively.
I love seeing someone mention Musial as one of the best ever!
Good comeback dman!
That's what I meant on #6.....defense only. And yes, Musial was a great player. Living close to STL I got to see him in person when I was a kid.
Point taken on #6 and their great defense isn't possible to argue against.
That being said, I watched many hundreds of Phillies games with Schmidt at third base, and I'm telling ya, the guy was like a vacuum cleaner out there. One thing he did perhaps better than any third baseman I can think of is cover the bunt. He wasn't the quickest third baseman out there, but he had some sort of innate ability to get a jump on a bunt and make the right play. A number of times on a sacrifice bunt, he would grab the bunt and throw the lead runner out at second base. I saw this countless times. He rarely made a mistake or a throwing error, and when he got to the ball he rarely bobbled it or anything such as that. Plays that the scorer would rule a hit for most third baseman because they couldn't make the play or they fumbled the ball but it was a tough play so the scorer didn't give them an error...well Schmidt would make those plays for outs, time and time again. These are facts that stats will not show, but is further proof why those who watched him play, despite Brett's better offense in some categories, clearly rate Schmidt as the best third baseman of all time.
Sometime guys do things that don't show up on a stat sheet.
I used to be amazed at how Justin Morneau went from first to third on singles, for a big man he was amazing! His 2010 season was going to be EPIC until he was injured.> @DIMEMAN said:
Wow, that must have been a TREAT!
One game was with the Dodgers and I got to see Duke Snider also.
I have to agree with some of this post. Both Brett and Schmidt were fine defensive players.
I like your Fielding % argument over the GG "factor". Schmidt's GG's were nice, but Buddy Bell was winning that award in the AL and then Gary Gaetti. Neither of these guys are great hitters like George. Had these guys played in NL....who knows? But they didn't.
The base stealing numbers are IDENTICLE. Each guy stole 12 bases a year and was caught 6 times. I don't see any advantage here for either player. Schmidt stole 29 one year but was caught 12 times, Mike appeared to stop running almost completely his last 6 years while George ran more at the end of his career. He should have stopped before his last two years but it looks like he wanted the 200 SB.
I completely agree with you if you want to decide who's "Easily the best 3rd baseman of all time" by post season numbers..............then Brett was better than Schmidt.
Both players had over 10,000 regular season PA, George had 184 and Mike had 158 post season PA respectively.
The rest of us are going to base the opinion more on the regular season, only using the post season if the two players are virtually tied, which in this case they are not.
Brett also played about 2 years longer than Schmidt, so when you bring up career totals you aren't being fair. You could also say that George was an average player accumulating numbers his last three seasons, while Mike quit after about 1 1/4, he was not willing to be an average player.
On who was the better hitter, Home Runs are MUCH more valuable than doubles. If it boils down to one number in two similar hitters, look at SLG%.............It's a narrow, but clear win for Mike, with Eddie Mathews (not as good in post season as George either) just edging George for 2nd place. Not that would be a better debate!
I don't see where we have proven that Brett was the best all time third baseman. But you sure have yourself convinced.
No one seems to be arguing about post season numbers, so I don't know why you keep repeating them.
Brett drove in more runs because he had MANY MANY more opportunities than Schmidt.
Brett had the best single season, but Schmidt had the better average OPS over their careers. .908 vs. .857 is not huge but it shows Mike was a little better. It IS very close, but George is no higher than #3. That's fantastic!
George, you were a GREAT hitter! Just not the best all time at 3B.
I never bring up made up numbers. Some like them, I do not.
Possibly all the Schmidt supporters crapped the thread?
I know dallas actuary did when he said Schmidt did everything better than Brett.
Career batting average- Brett, .305 Schmidt, .269
But of course batting average isn't important to dallas, so that stat doesn't count.
Its important to everyone who ever played the game, but not the dallas nerd.
Batting average is a great way to measure a batters ability, so is SLG% and OPS. Schmidt wins 2 of the three.
HR frequency (especially for corner players) is another great way to measure value. Schmidt hit a home run every 15.24 times at bat Brett every 32.64.
Looks more like I am the only one left trying to help you Brett fans understand he was GREAT but not quite the best. I am going to give up now too.
Have a nice evening everyone!
Darin is a diehard Royals fan so it's really no surprise that he is the only person in this thread besides the OP that considers Brett better than Schmidt.
That's not a knock against him but simply a fact. I consider Tom Seaver to be the best pitcher of all time, too.
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.
Because he didn’t. But he believes if he says it enough times it will stick. There is a lot of that going on these days
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......
If it wasn't for his catcher when he was with the Mets, Seaver wouldn't have been nuttin.
For a Philly fan, you're not so bad after all, 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.
Johnny Bench, quote, “If Jerry Grote were on my team, I'd be playing third base.”
Speaking of Bench. He was the best all around catcher ever!
I'm really just trying to make a point. Dallas said Schmidt did EVERYTHING better than Brett, and that
simply is not true. Brett was better at a lot of things. And I stick to my arguement that Brett ran the bases better also,
because I saw a lot of the Royals games and Brett turned many singles into doubles just by pure hustle, as did
Hal McCrae.
Brett - better at hitting for high average, better at hitting doubles, better at hitting triples, better baserunner,
better under pressure(playoff stats prove this), much better at putting the ball in play vs. striking out.
Just to name a few.
Maybe Brett wasn't better than Schmidt overall, but he did do some things better so Dallas actuary is
completely wrong and isn't the baseball expert he pretends to be.
Part of Bretts greatness is that he could do things Schmidt and his contemporaries could never dream of
doing, like have more home runs than strikeouts, which Brett did in 1980 with a very respectable 24 homers
and 22 strikeouts. Who only strikes out 22 times a season these days? And Schmidt never hit over 20 doubles,
triples, and home runs in a season either. Only Brett, Mays and a few others do that.
So I may not really be arguing Brett is better overall than Schmidt, although the Royals wouldn't have
won nearly as many games if Schmidt was on the team instead of Brett, because we had to have a guy who
could produce under pressure since we had very little firepower besides Brett, unlike the star packed Phillies teams.
Wait a minute, Brett was a lot better than Schmidt after all, I guess it was pretty easy to convince myself.
What I was saying was that Schmidt hit for more power, got on base more, ground into fewer double plays and hit better in key situations (those four things cover hitting), and Schmidt was a better fielder. As such, he was better at "everything". There is also the question of baserunning, and if either one of them was measurably better than the other I don't see it, so I ignored that. But if you'd like to hang your hat on whatever microdifference exists there and declare Brett the winner, I won't bother arguing the point because the silliness of caring about that microdifference pales in comparison to the silliness of thinking Brett was better than Schmidt overall, and you got the big question right (or would, if you'd drop that silly "maybe").
If the misunderstanding of what I meant by "everything" was that you thought I meant literally "everything", then my long posts would have be ridiculously long if I have to spell out what ought to be freaking obvious. For the sanity of the people who don't require their hands held in a baseball discussion, however, I will continue to refer to "everything that matters" as "everything".
Schmidt was one of the best. However, a 390 post 1980 season, and a member of the 3000/300/300 club are more amazing and impressive than anything Schmidt accomplished.
Brett is also the only player in history to accumulate more than 3,000 hits, 300 home runs, 600 doubles, 100 triples, 1,500 RBI and 200 stolen bases.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
I did not say the above, just to be clear. I have had some spirited debates with Dallas and would never be foolish enough to say he was "completely wrong" about baseball analysis.
Hold on here , If I had to choose whether I wanted either AROD or Ortiz straight up I'd pick AROD , Ortiz is only half a player , he literally naps in the dugout for half of every game.
I will say I like them together in the broadcasting booth
High praise from Pete Rose and some comments
from George Brett: