Sad thread... Instead of pursuing an argument to suggest there is a best third baseman of all time... How about having a list in no order of the ten best.
This is just painful to read and I expect more instead of what I have read here.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@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.
I have no idea what happened here; sorry about the misquote.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@coinkat said:
Sad thread... Instead of pursuing an argument to suggest there is a best third baseman of all time... How about having a list in no order of the ten best.
This is just painful to read and I expect more instead of what I have read here.
@1970s said:
Lifetime OPS+ leaders. Gene Tenace is right above George Brett. Beat him by a point.
And we respect people on this board who use this statistic to make a point ? LOL...LOL...LOL
1970s, while I enjoy your Special Olympics posts as much as anyone, it does bother me that you keep dragging Dallas88 into this. Especially if you are going to be posting insults based on falsehoods, it seems very inappropriate to be directing those insults at someone who isn't here to defend himself. Fire away at me to your heart's content, but you should stop taking shots at Dallas88.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I just find it very hard to believe that the greatest third baseman of all time has a career .267 batting average.
Seems pretty pedestrian.
And batting average does matter, just not to Dallas.
Just think how high Schmidts' OBP would have been if he was a .300 hitter. Which is a stat that does
matter to Dallas.
If Schmidt is actually the general consensus best all time 3rd baseman,
its kind of embarrasing that he hit for such a low average.
Ted Williams would wonder if that's the best we could really do, then wave George Brett
onto the field to replace Schmidt. And no one is going to argue with Mr. ballgame. Not even Dallas.
Case closed.
OBP%, SLG% and OPS are all better indicators of a player's production and value than batting average. Why keep fixating on a limited stat when you have more comprehensive stats to do so? Unless it's to manufacture an advantage for the player from your home team?
And for the record., Ted Williams, as great a player as he was, was not a very good ,manager. Superstar players often aren't within the sport in which they excelled.
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.
@Darin said:
I just find it very hard to believe that the greatest third baseman of all time has a career .267 batting average.
Seems pretty pedestrian.
Seems ironic that a Killebrew fan would obsess about batting average. Bill James ranks Killebrew as the 7th best first baseman of all time with his .256 average. That is a lower average than the next 41 first basemen ranked behind him, including Greenberg (.313). I will grant you that ranking offensive contributions by batting average is not as bad as ranking defensive contributions by fielding average, but batting average tells such a small part of the story that there's just no reason to worry about it.
And the greatest second baseman of all time hit .270 while the greatest catcher of all time also hit .267; the stat simply isn't very important. If you can see OBP and SLG, then there is no reason whatsoever to look at batting average; it adds nothing to what you already know.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Darin said:
I just find it very hard to believe that the greatest third baseman of all time has a career .267 batting average.
Seems pretty pedestrian.
Seems ironic that a Killebrew fan would obsess about batting average. Bill James ranks Killebrew as the 7th best first baseman of all time with his .256 average. That is a lower average than the next 41 first basemen ranked behind him, including Greenberg (.313). I will grant you that ranking offensive contributions by batting average is not as bad as ranking defensive contributions by fielding average, but batting average tells such a small part of the story that there's just no reason to worry about it.
And the greatest second baseman of all time hit .270 while the greatest catcher of all time also hit .267; the stat simply isn't very important. If you can see OBP and SLG, then there is no reason whatsoever to look at batting average; it adds nothing to what you already know.
Just curious who you have here as the best second baseman and catcher. If the catcher is not Bench.....I would have to disagree.
@Darin said:
I just find it very hard to believe that the greatest third baseman of all time has a career .267 batting average.
Seems pretty pedestrian.
Seems ironic that a Killebrew fan would obsess about batting average. Bill James ranks Killebrew as the 7th best first baseman of all time with his .256 average. That is a lower average than the next 41 first basemen ranked behind him, including Greenberg (.313). I will grant you that ranking offensive contributions by batting average is not as bad as ranking defensive contributions by fielding average, but batting average tells such a small part of the story that there's just no reason to worry about it.
And the greatest second baseman of all time hit .270 while the greatest catcher of all time also hit .267; the stat simply isn't very important. If you can see OBP and SLG, then there is no reason whatsoever to look at batting average; it adds nothing to what you already know.
Just curious who you have here as the best second baseman and catcher. If the catcher is not Bench.....I would have to disagree.
.267 is Bench's lifetime batting average.
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.
@Darin said:
I just find it very hard to believe that the greatest third baseman of all time has a career .267 batting average.
Seems pretty pedestrian.
Seems ironic that a Killebrew fan would obsess about batting average. Bill James ranks Killebrew as the 7th best first baseman of all time with his .256 average. That is a lower average than the next 41 first basemen ranked behind him, including Greenberg (.313). I will grant you that ranking offensive contributions by batting average is not as bad as ranking defensive contributions by fielding average, but batting average tells such a small part of the story that there's just no reason to worry about it.
And the greatest second baseman of all time hit .270 while the greatest catcher of all time also hit .267; the stat simply isn't very important. If you can see OBP and SLG, then there is no reason whatsoever to look at batting average; it adds nothing to what you already know.
Just curious who you have here as the best second baseman and catcher. If the catcher is not Bench.....I would have to disagree.
Why even ask a guy who thinks the best hitter and Pitcher ever are Ron Santo and Bert Blyleven?
@Darin said:
I just find it very hard to believe that the greatest third baseman of all time has a career .267 batting average.
Seems pretty pedestrian.
Seems ironic that a Killebrew fan would obsess about batting average. Bill James ranks Killebrew as the 7th best first baseman of all time with his .256 average. That is a lower average than the next 41 first basemen ranked behind him, including Greenberg (.313). I will grant you that ranking offensive contributions by batting average is not as bad as ranking defensive contributions by fielding average, but batting average tells such a small part of the story that there's just no reason to worry about it.
And the greatest second baseman of all time hit .270 while the greatest catcher of all time also hit .267; the stat simply isn't very important. If you can see OBP and SLG, then there is no reason whatsoever to look at batting average; it adds nothing to what you already know.
Just curious who you have here as the best second baseman and catcher. If the catcher is not Bench.....I would have to disagree.
Why even ask a guy who thinks the best hitter and Pitcher ever are Ron Santo and Bert Blyleven?
I usually agree pretty much with DA, but not on those 2! OMG.
@Darin said:
I just find it very hard to believe that the greatest third baseman of all time has a career .267 batting average.
Seems pretty pedestrian.
Seems ironic that a Killebrew fan would obsess about batting average. Bill James ranks Killebrew as the 7th best first baseman of all time with his .256 average. That is a lower average than the next 41 first basemen ranked behind him, including Greenberg (.313). I will grant you that ranking offensive contributions by batting average is not as bad as ranking defensive contributions by fielding average, but batting average tells such a small part of the story that there's just no reason to worry about it.
And the greatest second baseman of all time hit .270 while the greatest catcher of all time also hit .267; the stat simply isn't very important. If you can see OBP and SLG, then there is no reason whatsoever to look at batting average; it adds nothing to what you already know.
Just curious who you have here as the best second baseman and catcher. If the catcher is not Bench.....I would have to disagree.
Why even ask a guy who thinks the best hitter and Pitcher ever are Ron Santo and Bert Blyleven?
I usually agree pretty much with DA, but not on those 2! OMG.
He was being facetious.
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.
@Darin said:
I just find it very hard to believe that the greatest third baseman of all time has a career .267 batting average.
Seems pretty pedestrian.
Seems ironic that a Killebrew fan would obsess about batting average. Bill James ranks Killebrew as the 7th best first baseman of all time with his .256 average. That is a lower average than the next 41 first basemen ranked behind him, including Greenberg (.313). I will grant you that ranking offensive contributions by batting average is not as bad as ranking defensive contributions by fielding average, but batting average tells such a small part of the story that there's just no reason to worry about it.
And the greatest second baseman of all time hit .270 while the greatest catcher of all time also hit .267; the stat simply isn't very important. If you can see OBP and SLG, then there is no reason whatsoever to look at batting average; it adds nothing to what you already know.
Just curious who you have here as the best second baseman and catcher. If the catcher is not Bench.....I would have to disagree.
Why even ask a guy who thinks the best hitter and Pitcher ever are Ron Santo and Bert Blyleven?
I usually agree pretty much with DA, but not on those 2! OMG.
I would take Ryne Sandberg at second base over Joe Morgan.
And Rogers Hornsby as well.
I've always liked the Pirates, but Bill Mazeroski sucked and is no where near hall of fame material,
so Dallas you should really take him off your sig line.
Stargell is about the lowest batting average guy that I'm a huge fan of, and he hit a very
respectable .282 for his career.
I just really admire the guys who can hit for a high average, like Tony Gwynn. He was a magician with
the bat. It takes real talent to be able to do that, whereas there are plenty of power guys who couldn't do anything
else, Pete Incaviglia, Dave Kingman, guys like that who could hit the long ball but still sucked.
Jose Altuve is amazing and is in the top 3 of my favorite players to watch today.
The best of the best as far as high average guys playing today.
I loved both guys. Two of my favorites growing up. Their defense was relatively equal. Offensively, one hit for power, one hit for average. If I were building a team, which one I take might be dependent on what the rest of my team looked like. We are truly splitting hairs on these guys. Brett had a slightly longer career which helps some of his numbers, but about 40% of it was at a position other than 3B. And I'm sorry, but there are no points for playing 1B/DH in MLB. By 1986 Boggs was the AL all-star starter. By 1987 Brett was the reserve 1B and would continue to be a reserve. Truly, the AS numbers don't mean much but the fact that Boggs could supplant this legend to a reserve role speaks volumes...and the fact that Schmidt played his whole career at 3B vs. 60% for Brett makes Schmidt the winner of the "let's split hairs" debate. And I'm sure if he really wanted to, Schmidt could've logged a few accumulation years at 1B and likely reached 600 homers without affecting his average.
52-90 All Sports, Mostly Topps, Mostly HOF, and some assorted wax.
@estang said:
I would take both Brett & Schmidt on my team, and be very happy.
I grew up watching the A.L. so Brett left a bigger impression on me.
I will call this debate a "push"
I am not going to wade back into this debate. I made my points in another thread and certainly did not disparage Schmidt in doing so. He was a great player.
Estang, one person who did not come up is a guy that ended up in Minnesota -- Paul Molitor. He was special but always a bit overshadowed by others like Brett and and on his own team, the immensely talented Robin Yount.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
@1970s said:
Brett's 3,154 career hits are the most by any third baseman in major league history. He 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. He was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1999 on the first ballot and is the only player in MLB history to win a batting title in three different decades.
He played 21 seasons with the same franchise, The guy was an absolute hitting machine. In 187 postseason plate appearances, the guy hit .337.
I remember the season he hit .390 The guy was just awesome. I watched Mike Schmidt play his entire career as well, and I would take Brett over Schmidt for my team. I don't think it's even close.
What a joke of a post. Schmidt had a higher OBP, far more power, and was a greatly superior defender. You are right about one thing-it’s not close.
You can make the case that Mike Schmidt was more valuable to the Phillies in 1980 than Brett was to the Royals. Or, rather, contributed more. Brett was incredible, no question - chasing .400 and all that.
He also missed 45 games.
Schmidt, on the other hand, hit "only" .286 but hit 48 homers, won a Gold Glove - and played in 150 games.
>
What a joke of a post. Schmidt had a higher OBP, far more power, and was a greatly superior defender. You are right about one thing-it’s not close.
So tell me, how is a .955 lifetime fielder "GREATLY SUPERIOR" to a .950 lifetime fielder ?
And how did that "power hitter" have less lifetime RBI's then Brett ?
He had a slightly better OBP, but you failed to mention his KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK's, which
coupled with his much lower batting average attributed to the fact that he couldn't drive in more runs then Brett did.
LOL
>
Brett won 1 gold glove, Schmidt won 10. Brett hung on for three years as an average to below average hitter, compiling numbers. Schmidt chose not to do that. Actually Mathews and Boggs were better than Brett. Probably Chipper too. Both were great, Schmidt was better, and has the numbers to prove it.
@1970s said:
So tell me, how is a .955 lifetime fielder "GREATLY SUPERIOR" to a .950 lifetime fielder ?
And how did that "power hitter" have less lifetime RBI's then Brett ?
He had a slightly better OBP, but you failed to mention his KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK's, which
coupled with his much lower batting average attributed to the fact that he couldn't drive in more runs then Brett did.
If you care:
Fielding average is a statistic with very limited value, and by itself provides virtually no evidence of fielding ability. There are terrible fielders with high fielding percentages because they only attempt the easy plays and can't move more than three feet to field a ball. There are great fielders with low fielding percentages because they get to balls nobody else does and make errors more often on these very hard plays. There are infielders with great first basemen that save them from errors on bad throws, and infielders with terrible first basemen who can't catch "bad" throws that most first basemen can. And there are dozens of other factors. Consider them if you want to evaluate fielding; just cite fielding percentage if you want to appear lazy.
Brett had one more RBI than Schmidt because he had 1,500 more opportunities to drive in a run. Schmidt was a MUCH better RBI man than Brett. Not close. Not remotely close.
Schmidt's strikeouts reduce his value, but to a degree smaller than his OBP advantage. K's are virtually meaningless as compared to other kinds of outs. And while you're considering types of outs, you need to take into consideration that Brett doubled up the runner in front of him more than Schmidt, and that Schmidt got more SF because he hit more fly ball outs than Brett. Add it all up and how Brett and Schmidt made their outs is a total wash.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1970s said:
When Schmidt retired at age 39 (only playing 42 games because he couldn't hack it) he hit
.203.
When Brett was age 39, he played 152 games and batted .285.
Nice try. Got any more lies you want to sell ? LOL
In Brett's last three full seasons. his OPS+ was 101, 102, and 94. Schmidt was 152, 142, and 112, You have your opinion, and I have my facts. Brett might be the 5th best 3rd baseman in the history of the game. He's not particularly close to being the best. Mathews is 2nd best.
markj111 doesn't post here very often but when he does he brings his A game.
FYI to even insinuate that Brett was close to being the fielder Schmidt was is an arguement I'm going to tune out on. Night vs Day
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......
@1970s said:
When Schmidt retired at age 39 (only playing 42 games because he couldn't hack it) he hit
.203.
When Brett was age 39, he played 152 games and batted .285.
Nice try. Got any more lies you want to sell ? LOL
In Brett's last three full seasons. his OPS+ was 101, 102, and 94. Schmidt was 152, 142, and 112, You have your opinion, and I have my facts. Brett might be the 5th best 3rd baseman in the history of the game. He's not particularly close to being the best. Mathews is 2nd best.
Another OPS+ guy. LOL.
Let me ask you something. Was Gene Tenace a better career baseball player then George Brett ? Tenace had a better career OPS+ then George Brett. LOL. Great stat. LOL.
Brett had more than twice as many PAs as Tenace. Counting stats matter, but so do rate stats. I was not aware that you are the great decider of which stats are useful.
@1970s said:
LOL. Please answer the question. Being that you and Dallas88 are OPS+ guys, please answer
the question. Was Gene Tenace a better career baseball player then George Brett. LOL.
No, he wasn't, and the fact that you would even ask the question tells me, and everyone else, that you simply aren't comprehending the information being presented to you. That is, if your comments about RBI had left any doubt. You are humiliating yourself and don't realize it; better people than me would stop setting you up to do it again. I, however, continue to find you terribly amusing.
You will have to explain to me sometime why you keep calling me Dallas88 when you know that I'm not. Is it supposed to be an insult? I don't remember Dallas88 very well, but he's not on my list of mental deficients (the list you're on). I'm pretty sure he knew, for example, that Joe DiMaggio was a better RBI man than Harold Baines, even though Baines had more RBI. Please, pretty please, explain to us why Baines was better than DiMaggio. You'll be a board legend if you do.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Tabe said:
You can make the case that Mike Schmidt was more valuable to the Phillies in 1980 than Brett was to the Royals. Or, rather, contributed more. Brett was incredible, no question - chasing .400 and all that.
He also missed 45 games.
Schmidt, on the other hand, hit "only" .286 but hit 48 homers, won a Gold Glove - and played in 150 games.
No, you simply cannot make the case that Schmidt contributed more to the Phillies in 1980 than George Brett
did to the Royals.
Batting avg.
Brett- .390
Schmidt- .286
RBI
Brett- 118 (in 117 games)
Schmidt 121 (in 150+ games)
OBP%
Brett- .454
Schmidt- .380
SLG%
Brett- .664
Schmidt- .624
OPS
Brett- 1.118
Schmidt- 1.004
OPS +
Brett- 203
Schmidt- 171
Seriously, what are you talking about? Brett even killed him in all the stats the Dallas nerd loves.
How many games would the Royals have won without his bat in the lineup?
Please, you can talk about Schmidt being better than Brett career wise but when you're talking
1980 you're going somewhere you shouldn't have gone.
I hope we're clear on this, 1980 isn't debatable!
Brett had more than twice as many PAs as Tenace. Counting stats matter, but so do rate stats. I was not aware that you are the great decider of which stats are useful.
LOL. Please answer the question. Being that you and Dallas88 are OPS+ guys, please answer
the question. Was Gene Tenace a better career baseball player then George Brett. LOL.
@Darin said:
No, you simply cannot make the case that Schmidt contributed more to the Phillies in 1980 than George Brett
did to the Royals.
...
I hope we're clear on this, 1980 isn't debatable!
I'm not going to spend the hours required to make the full case for two reasons: first, because I seem to remember doing it once before with skin arguing Brett's case, and second because in the end it's too close to call. But the Powerpoint version of the case for Schmidt is this:
Brett clearly was better than Schmidt that year, when he was playing, but he missed a lot of games. Comparing rate stats, even OPS+, just doesn't work in that case else Gates Brown was the best player in the AL in 1968 (and better than either Brett or Schmidt in 1980).
Even with all those missed games, Brett was a little bit more valuable at the plate than Schmidt that year, but Schmidt was more valuable in the field.
If you are managing a team in 1980 and you are offered either Schmidt or Brett, knowing how they will do and how many games they will play, as your third baseman, who would you take? In a vacuum, they really were too close to call that year, so neither answer is clearly wrong. Probably, your decision will depend on your backup third baseman. If he's pretty good, then take Brett; the combination of Brett and a quality utility guy will win you more games than Schmidt alone. But if you're going to have to call up a scrub from AAA to play those 45 games, you should take Schmidt.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
With apologies to DA....306 lifetime, 10 time all star!
Sad thread... Instead of pursuing an argument to suggest there is a best third baseman of all time... How about having a list in no order of the ten best.
This is just painful to read and I expect more instead of what I have read here.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I have no idea what happened here; sorry about the misquote.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/680370/greatest-third-basemen-since-1920/p1
Personally autographed 3,000 hit game ticket
Lafayette Grading Set
99% of the time, OPS+ is a wonderful analytical tool.
Gene Tenace is the other 1%.
1970s, while I enjoy your Special Olympics posts as much as anyone, it does bother me that you keep dragging Dallas88 into this. Especially if you are going to be posting insults based on falsehoods, it seems very inappropriate to be directing those insults at someone who isn't here to defend himself. Fire away at me to your heart's content, but you should stop taking shots at Dallas88.
He did say Dallas 88 has a huge bias towards George Brett, so you can't be him.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
I just find it very hard to believe that the greatest third baseman of all time has a career .267 batting average.
Seems pretty pedestrian.
And batting average does matter, just not to Dallas.
Just think how high Schmidts' OBP would have been if he was a .300 hitter. Which is a stat that does
matter to Dallas.
If Schmidt is actually the general consensus best all time 3rd baseman,
its kind of embarrasing that he hit for such a low average.
Ted Williams would wonder if that's the best we could really do, then wave George Brett
onto the field to replace Schmidt. And no one is going to argue with Mr. ballgame. Not even Dallas.
Case closed.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
OBP%, SLG% and OPS are all better indicators of a player's production and value than batting average. Why keep fixating on a limited stat when you have more comprehensive stats to do so? Unless it's to manufacture an advantage for the player from your home team?
And for the record., Ted Williams, as great a player as he was, was not a very good ,manager. Superstar players often aren't within the sport in which they excelled.
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.
Seems ironic that a Killebrew fan would obsess about batting average. Bill James ranks Killebrew as the 7th best first baseman of all time with his .256 average. That is a lower average than the next 41 first basemen ranked behind him, including Greenberg (.313). I will grant you that ranking offensive contributions by batting average is not as bad as ranking defensive contributions by fielding average, but batting average tells such a small part of the story that there's just no reason to worry about it.
And the greatest second baseman of all time hit .270 while the greatest catcher of all time also hit .267; the stat simply isn't very important. If you can see OBP and SLG, then there is no reason whatsoever to look at batting average; it adds nothing to what you already know.
Just curious who you have here as the best second baseman and catcher. If the catcher is not Bench.....I would have to disagree.
.267 is Bench's lifetime batting average.
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
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
@DIMEMAN said:
Why even ask a guy who thinks the best hitter and Pitcher ever are Ron Santo and Bert Blyleven?
And the best second baseman of all time is Joe Morgan.
I usually agree pretty much with DA, but not on those 2! OMG.
He was being facetious.
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 was joking
I guess I'm now officially a Harmon Killebrew fan! That one surprised me,
but if Dallas says so I guess it must be true.
I do like the guy and have heard he was very good to his fans, but you may be thinking of Joe Banzai.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
I would take Ryne Sandberg at second base over Joe Morgan.
And Rogers Hornsby as well.
I've always liked the Pirates, but Bill Mazeroski sucked and is no where near hall of fame material,
so Dallas you should really take him off your sig line.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
Stargell is about the lowest batting average guy that I'm a huge fan of, and he hit a very
respectable .282 for his career.
I just really admire the guys who can hit for a high average, like Tony Gwynn. He was a magician with
the bat. It takes real talent to be able to do that, whereas there are plenty of power guys who couldn't do anything
else, Pete Incaviglia, Dave Kingman, guys like that who could hit the long ball but still sucked.
Jose Altuve is amazing and is in the top 3 of my favorite players to watch today.
The best of the best as far as high average guys playing today.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
I loved both guys. Two of my favorites growing up. Their defense was relatively equal. Offensively, one hit for power, one hit for average. If I were building a team, which one I take might be dependent on what the rest of my team looked like. We are truly splitting hairs on these guys. Brett had a slightly longer career which helps some of his numbers, but about 40% of it was at a position other than 3B. And I'm sorry, but there are no points for playing 1B/DH in MLB. By 1986 Boggs was the AL all-star starter. By 1987 Brett was the reserve 1B and would continue to be a reserve. Truly, the AS numbers don't mean much but the fact that Boggs could supplant this legend to a reserve role speaks volumes...and the fact that Schmidt played his whole career at 3B vs. 60% for Brett makes Schmidt the winner of the "let's split hairs" debate. And I'm sure if he really wanted to, Schmidt could've logged a few accumulation years at 1B and likely reached 600 homers without affecting his average.
He was great at striking out. I guess that impresses some people.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
I would take both Brett & Schmidt on my team, and be very happy.
I grew up watching the A.L. so Brett left a bigger impression on me.
I will call this debate a "push"
Erik
I am not going to wade back into this debate. I made my points in another thread and certainly did not disparage Schmidt in doing so. He was a great player.
Estang, one person who did not come up is a guy that ended up in Minnesota -- Paul Molitor. He was special but always a bit overshadowed by others like Brett and and on his own team, the immensely talented Robin Yount.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
In no order of the ten best...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
What a joke of a post. Schmidt had a higher OBP, far more power, and was a greatly superior defender. You are right about one thing-it’s not close.
You can make the case that Mike Schmidt was more valuable to the Phillies in 1980 than Brett was to the Royals. Or, rather, contributed more. Brett was incredible, no question - chasing .400 and all that.
He also missed 45 games.
Schmidt, on the other hand, hit "only" .286 but hit 48 homers, won a Gold Glove - and played in 150 games.
Where is that clip of a horse on the ground with a guy beating him with a whip!
>
Brett won 1 gold glove, Schmidt won 10. Brett hung on for three years as an average to below average hitter, compiling numbers. Schmidt chose not to do that. Actually Mathews and Boggs were better than Brett. Probably Chipper too. Both were great, Schmidt was better, and has the numbers to prove it.
If you care:
Fielding average is a statistic with very limited value, and by itself provides virtually no evidence of fielding ability. There are terrible fielders with high fielding percentages because they only attempt the easy plays and can't move more than three feet to field a ball. There are great fielders with low fielding percentages because they get to balls nobody else does and make errors more often on these very hard plays. There are infielders with great first basemen that save them from errors on bad throws, and infielders with terrible first basemen who can't catch "bad" throws that most first basemen can. And there are dozens of other factors. Consider them if you want to evaluate fielding; just cite fielding percentage if you want to appear lazy.
Brett had one more RBI than Schmidt because he had 1,500 more opportunities to drive in a run. Schmidt was a MUCH better RBI man than Brett. Not close. Not remotely close.
Schmidt's strikeouts reduce his value, but to a degree smaller than his OBP advantage. K's are virtually meaningless as compared to other kinds of outs. And while you're considering types of outs, you need to take into consideration that Brett doubled up the runner in front of him more than Schmidt, and that Schmidt got more SF because he hit more fly ball outs than Brett. Add it all up and how Brett and Schmidt made their outs is a total wash.
In Brett's last three full seasons. his OPS+ was 101, 102, and 94. Schmidt was 152, 142, and 112, You have your opinion, and I have my facts. Brett might be the 5th best 3rd baseman in the history of the game. He's not particularly close to being the best. Mathews is 2nd best.
markj111 doesn't post here very often but when he does he brings his A game.
FYI to even insinuate that Brett was close to being the fielder Schmidt was is an arguement I'm going to tune out on. Night vs Day
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......
Brett had more than twice as many PAs as Tenace. Counting stats matter, but so do rate stats. I was not aware that you are the great decider of which stats are useful.
No, he wasn't, and the fact that you would even ask the question tells me, and everyone else, that you simply aren't comprehending the information being presented to you. That is, if your comments about RBI had left any doubt. You are humiliating yourself and don't realize it; better people than me would stop setting you up to do it again. I, however, continue to find you terribly amusing.
You will have to explain to me sometime why you keep calling me Dallas88 when you know that I'm not. Is it supposed to be an insult? I don't remember Dallas88 very well, but he's not on my list of mental deficients (the list you're on). I'm pretty sure he knew, for example, that Joe DiMaggio was a better RBI man than Harold Baines, even though Baines had more RBI. Please, pretty please, explain to us why Baines was better than DiMaggio. You'll be a board legend if you do.
No, you simply cannot make the case that Schmidt contributed more to the Phillies in 1980 than George Brett
did to the Royals.
Batting avg.
Brett- .390
Schmidt- .286
RBI
Brett- 118 (in 117 games)
Schmidt 121 (in 150+ games)
OBP%
Brett- .454
Schmidt- .380
SLG%
Brett- .664
Schmidt- .624
OPS
Brett- 1.118
Schmidt- 1.004
OPS +
Brett- 203
Schmidt- 171
Seriously, what are you talking about? Brett even killed him in all the stats the Dallas nerd loves.
How many games would the Royals have won without his bat in the lineup?
Please, you can talk about Schmidt being better than Brett career wise but when you're talking
1980 you're going somewhere you shouldn't have gone.
I hope we're clear on this, 1980 isn't debatable!
Stupid list…. Mistlin
No. Ridiculous question.
I'm not going to spend the hours required to make the full case for two reasons: first, because I seem to remember doing it once before with skin arguing Brett's case, and second because in the end it's too close to call. But the Powerpoint version of the case for Schmidt is this:
Brett clearly was better than Schmidt that year, when he was playing, but he missed a lot of games. Comparing rate stats, even OPS+, just doesn't work in that case else Gates Brown was the best player in the AL in 1968 (and better than either Brett or Schmidt in 1980).
Even with all those missed games, Brett was a little bit more valuable at the plate than Schmidt that year, but Schmidt was more valuable in the field.
If you are managing a team in 1980 and you are offered either Schmidt or Brett, knowing how they will do and how many games they will play, as your third baseman, who would you take? In a vacuum, they really were too close to call that year, so neither answer is clearly wrong. Probably, your decision will depend on your backup third baseman. If he's pretty good, then take Brett; the combination of Brett and a quality utility guy will win you more games than Schmidt alone. But if you're going to have to call up a scrub from AAA to play those 45 games, you should take Schmidt.