Here's some info if anyone cares. Not sure of the opinions of many of you on WAR, WAR7, and JAWS stats. I personally like them all. I picked these 7 players to show.
WAR Leaders (A single number that presents the number of wins the player added):
Schmidt- 106.8
Mathews- 96.6
Beltre- 94.6
Boggs- 91.4
Brett- 88.7
Jones- 85.2
Robinson- 78.4
WAR7 Leaders (The sum of the seven best WAR seasons for a player. Need not be seven years in a row):
Schmidt- 58.7
Boggs- 56.4
Mathews- 54.5
Brett- 53.3
Beltre- 49.3
Jones- 46.8
Robinson- 45.8
JAWS Leaders: (Contains a combination of Career and 7 Year Peak WAR totals allowing for comparison to average Hall of Famers by position):
Schmidt- 82.8
Mathews- 75.6
Boggs- 73.9
Beltre- 72.0
Brett- 71.0
Jones- 66.0
Robinson- 62.1
What I Collect:
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 77.97% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.26% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
I think you guys convinced me with this Schmidt-Brett debate, and I'm changing my mind. I hope this doesn't shock anybody since I'm a big Phillies fan.
I'm dropping Brett to #3 on my all time third baseman list and placing Eddie Mathews at #2.
@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.
Dallas, as always, with clear, compelling and rational analysis.
Very entertaining thread!
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.
@stevek said:
I think you guys convinced me with this Schmidt-Brett debate, and I'm changing my mind. I hope this doesn't shock anybody since I'm a big Phillies fan.
I'm dropping Brett to #3 on my all time third baseman list and placing Eddie Mathews at #2.
This.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Gates Effing Brown. Unless you watched the Tigers closely in 1968 or are a student of the game you can’t believe the season he had. Primarily as a pinch hitter.
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......
@stevek said:
I think you guys convinced me with this Schmidt-Brett debate, and I'm changing my mind. I hope this doesn't shock anybody since I'm a big Phillies fan.
I'm dropping Brett to #3 on my all time third baseman list and placing Eddie Mathews at #2.
And that’s when the fight officially started
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......
@Justacommeman said:
Gates Effing Brown. Unless you watched the Tigers closely in 1968 or are a student of the game you can’t believe the season he had. Primarily as a pinch hitter.
mark
When the Gator entered the on deck circle and swung two or three bats around you put down the frosted pop tart and paid attention.
@Justacommeman said:
Gates Effing Brown. Unless you watched the Tigers closely in 1968 or are a student of the game you can’t believe the season he had. Primarily as a pinch hitter.
mark
When the Gator entered the on deck circle and swung two or three bats around you put down the frosted pop tart and paid attention.
and there there was Ike Brown............
Coming off the riots the city needed it in the worst way. Everyone forget. For a short while.
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......
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.
And...there ya go. Dallas did the heavy lifting for me.
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.
Brett hung on ??? Did you ever think perhaps, just perhaps, he was good enough to make the club, and the club didn't release him ?
So nice try saying that Brett "held on" . No, Brett was healthy, and made the team, and got playing time from his manager.
Schmidt retired because he couldn't play as long as Brett due to injury, and because his fielding and hitting really sucked at age 39.
And again, a .,955 fielding percentage lifetime compared to a .950 fielding percentage lifetime is peanuts. Brett was just as good as Schmidt, and was more versatile, playing 6 different major league positions. Schmidt could only play one. Schmidt spent his entire life playing third base, which Brett didn't, and yet Brett fielded just as good as Schmidt according to the lifetime numbers.
LOL
Uh...you attributed a quote to me that I did not say.
@stevek said:
I think you guys convinced me with this Schmidt-Brett debate, and I'm changing my mind. I hope this doesn't shock anybody since I'm a big Phillies fan.
I'm dropping Brett to #3 on my all time third baseman list and placing Eddie Mathews at #2.
Stevek obviously reread the posts comparing Schmidt to Brett in the postseason, got so enraged at how much better Brett was, he then kissed his mommy goodnight, went upstairs to his room and cried for hours in front of his signed Schmidt poster hanging on his wall. After crying for hours, he then got so enraged that his hero crapped the bed in the playoffs, that he had to come back to his desktop and write this post. The official video is now uploaded on youtube. You can search it using myheromike videos.
I never before closely compared Mathews versus Brett.
Mathews was better, hence the Brett drop to #3.
I watched Brett during the 1980 WS when the Phillies beat the Royals. Brett just didn't look comfortable out there at third base. Others must have noticed that as well who watched a lot of American League games. Which is a likely reason why despite his excellent bat, on a number of all time lists that I have seen, Brett drops even further to 4th, 5th or 6th.
For now though, i still have Brett at third best. But I'll be forced to drop Brett further if i see more evidence that impells me to do that.
@stevek said:
I think you guys convinced me with this Schmidt-Brett debate, and I'm changing my mind. I hope this doesn't shock anybody since I'm a big Phillies fan.
I'm dropping Brett to #3 on my all time third baseman list and placing Eddie Mathews at #2.
Stevek obviously reread the posts comparing Schmidt to Brett in the postseason, got so enraged at how much better Brett was, he then kissed his mommy goodnight, went upstairs to his room and cried for hours in front of his signed Schmidt poster hanging on his wall. After crying for hours, he then got so enraged that his hero crapped the bed in the playoffs, that he had to come back to his desktop and write this post. The official video is now uploaded on youtube. You can search it using myheromike videos.
I never before closely compared Mathews versus Brett.
Mathews was better, hence the Brett drop to #3.
I watched Brett during the 1980 WS when the Phillies beat the Royals. Brett just didn't look comfortable out there at third base.
You wouldn’t either if you had a load in your drawers
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......
I never before closely compared Mathews versus Brett.
Mathews was better, hence the Brett drop to #3.
I watched Brett during the 1980 WS when the Phillies beat the Royals. Brett just didn't look comfortable out there at third base. Others must have noticed that as well who watched a lot of American League games. Which is a likely reason why despite his excellent bat, on a number of all time lists that I have seen, Brett drops even further to 4th, 5th or 6th.
The hall of fame committee that gave more votes to Brett over Schmidt disagrees.
I'll stick with those guys over CU message board posters.
LOL
Carry on.
That’s a silly way of looking at it. It’s kind of how you know you lost the debate when you reach for this non sense. Did Schmidt and Brett go in the same year? What were they 98% and 96% anyway? As you pointed out Schmidt didn’t get along with the press. I’m shocked he got 96+ % actually.
The following are a list of players that BOTH Schmidt and Brett had more percent of HOF votes then:
Willie Mays
Hank Aaron
Babe Ruth
Mickey Mantle
Ted Williams
Joe DiMaggio
Roberto Clemente
Gene Tenace
Embarrassing. I would argue that the HOF voters have always been inept, continue to be inept and are often flat out dumb asses. I actually do think this forum would do a better job.
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......
Dallas- what about Bretts' 118 RBI in 117 games vs. Schmidt's 121 in 150 games in 1980.
Remember, you're the one who said Schmidt was the much better RBI man.
Now since you're a Schmidt supporter you simply ignore a stat like that because it doesn't support your argument? LOL.
That means if Brett had played in 33 more games and knocked in a total of 3 more runs
he would have dropped to Schmidts' level.
Sorry, you're way off base here thinking Schmidt was even comparable to Brett in 1980.
If Brett had played in 33 more games in 1980 and gone hitless he still would have hit for a higher
average than Schmidt. You could put Miss Daisy in for George Brett in those 33 games and you would
still be better off picking Brett and Miss Daisy over Mike Schmidt in 1980.
Your argument that Schmidt and Brett were about equal that year has been rebuffed.
You've failed. Career wise, you have a case for Schmidt. 1980, suddenly OPS and OPS+ just don't
work, huh? You're laughable! .390 against .286 doesn't matter?
For pete's sake- Brett's batting average was higher than Schmits' OBP, yet that doesn't matter because
the Dallas nerd says it doesn't.
Why don't you just try to stay objective since you purport to be the board expert?
@Darin said:
Dallas- what about Bretts' 118 RBI in 117 games vs. Schmidt's 121 in 150 games in 1980.
Remember, you're the one who said Schmidt was the much better RBI man.
Now since you're a Schmidt supporter you simply ignore a stat like that because it doesn't support your argument? LOL.
That means if Brett had played in 33 more games and knocked in a total of 3 more runs
he would have dropped to Schmidts' level.
Sorry, you're way off base here thinking Schmidt was even comparable to Brett in 1980.
If Brett had played in 33 more games in 1980 and gone hitless he still would have hit for a higher
average than Schmidt. You could put Miss Daisy in for George Brett in those 33 games and you would
still be better off picking Brett and Miss Daisy over Mike Schmidt in 1980.
Your argument that Schmidt and Brett were about equal that year has been rebuffed.
You've failed. Career wise, you have a case for Schmidt. 1980, suddenly OPS and OPS+ just don't
work, huh? You're laughable! .390 against .286 doesn't matter?
For pete's sake- Brett's batting average was higher than Schmits' OBP, yet that doesn't matter because
the Dallas nerd says it doesn't.
Why don't you just try to stay objective since you purport to be the board expert?
So many words, so little intelligent thought behind them. Since I now know you can't read, find someone who can and have them read my last post to you.
I'll wait.
...
...
...
OK, now that you know I already said Brett was better at the plate than Schmidt in 1980 - a lot better for the games he played, and still better even taking into account all the games he missed - do you see now why your post here makes you look so foolish? If the title of this thread was "George Brett - One of the best baseball players of all time, and easily the best 3rd baseman in 1980 for 117 games" then nobody, especially me, would have argued the point. But here we are 100+ posts into an entirely different thread where we've all been arguing about who was the best all-time, and you're arguing with yourself and the imaginary demons in your head about the first 117 games of 1980. Sad.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I found someone to read your post to me, halfway through they said you obviously
know nothing about baseball and refused to read any more.
Anyone who thinks its a tossup between who to take in 1980 between Brett and Schmidt
obviously just doesn't understand the game very well and shouldn't pretend to be a board
expert on baseball. Understand?
Would the Phillies have still won without Schmidt in 1980. Of course. Strong supporting cast.
The Royals without Brett? No way. He carried the team.
@Darin said:
I found someone to read your post to me, halfway through they said you obviously
know nothing about baseball and refused to read any more.
I accept your apology for completely misunderstanding what I wrote, insulting me for writing something I didn't write, and then pretending none of it happened. I accept that these things can happen when dealing with the tiny-brained folk. But what I can't accept, and could never possibly believe, is that you found another human being with a brain that was even tinier. Nobody who knows how to read, anyway.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1970s said:
Dallas88tuary is one confused individual. He puts Schmidt above Brett because of his allegiance to the OPS+ stat. The same stat that claims Gene Tenace was a lifetime better hitter then George Brett. LOL. So Dallas88, is or is not Gene Tenace a better lifetime hitter then George Brett ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? You still have not answered this one easy question. If you say yes, then you stick to your guns. If you say no, then you prove to yourself that your view of baseball stats and your view of George Brett vs. Mike Schmidt is flawed.
So answer this one simple question........LOL
Was Gene Tenace a better lifetime hitter then George Brett ??? LOL LOL
It is slowly dawning on me that replying to people who can't read really serves no purpose. I did answer the Gene Tenace question already, but you'll need to find someone to read it to you. The logical fallacy you are employing here is known as a straw man. I never said that career OPS+ was the sole determinant of "better" with respect to hitting, and specifically did not say that Schmidt was better than Brett solely because his career OPS+ was higher than Brett's. You, like Darin, are not arguing against a proposition that anybody has actually made, but rather against a proposition that your tiny brain has created out of words that others have used but that you do not understand. You are right about one thing, though. I am confused. What confuses me is why anyone as exceptionally stupid as you are is typing on a computer rather than watching My Little Pony videos. Maybe I need to speak to your mother.
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......
@Brick said:
What I don't understand is how people state their beliefs, say it is not even debatable, then debate it for days on end.
Because not even debatable is not the same as etched in stone. When it's etched in stone then it's really not debatable any longer.
Sure hope i cleared that up.
Is this the same as a "stone cold mortal lock," or was that Stalin? 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.
@Darin said:
I found someone to read your post to me, halfway through they said you obviously
know nothing about baseball and refused to read any more.
I accept your apology for completely misunderstanding what I wrote, insulting me for writing something I didn't write, and then pretending none of it happened. I accept that these things can happen when dealing with the tiny-brained folk. But what I can't accept, and could never possibly believe, is that you found another human being with a brain that was even tinier. Nobody who knows how to read, anyway.
I didn't apologize for it.
How about you apologize for pretending to be a board expert on baseball.
When you stated it was a tossup on who to take between Brett and Schmidt in 1980 you
lost all credibility. Yeah, sure, its a tossup on who to take between a .390 and .286 hitter.
This board is now accepting applications for a baseball expert.
Our so called expert, Dallasactuary, has displayed complete ineptitude.
We would consider a trade, however we know we couldn't get anything in return
for Dallas since he's worthless as trade bait so we're just going to cut him loose.
@Brick said:
What I don't understand is how people state their beliefs, say it is not even debatable, then debate it for days on end.
You do realize he was referring to you right?
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:
Your posts about why you put Schmidt over the top against Brett was because of two things.
1- Schmidt was a much better fielder
2- Schmidt's lifetime OPS+ was higher then Bretts.
Nobody could possibly be as stupid as you are pretending to be, and I am at a loss trying to understand why anyone would go to the lengths you are going to convince all of us that you really are this stupid. I've made quite a few posts in this thread, but all you have to do is look at the first one to see four different measurements that I cited. While it is possible that you don't know the meaning of the word "two", I simply don't believe it. So if your goal was to convince me that you are a drooling imbecile, you've failed despite your Herculean efforts. Pretending to be as stupid as you are pretending to be actually requires quite a bit of thought.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Darin said:
I didn't apologize for it.
How about you apologize for pretending to be a board expert on baseball.
When you stated it was a tossup on who to take between Brett and Schmidt in 1980 you
lost all credibility. Yeah, sure, its a tossup on who to take between a .390 and .286 hitter.
You, on the other hand, are what you appear to be.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@galaxy27 said:
i think ive changed my diaper 17 times
Brett still has you beat.
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......
The only winners in this thread are the spectators. The Brett guys aren't going to convince the Schmidt guys, and vice versa. Yet they continue to try. Maybe it's for those of us sitting on the fence. Some good arguments made on both sides. But again, we're splitting hairs here. I'm not gonna kick you in the shins for choosing either. My choice, on any given day, would probably be reflected by the rest of my lineup. All things equal, I'd probably choose Schmidt for the power and defense... or just punt, and take Matthews.
The suggestion that Brett played six positions in a best third baseman argument is kinda killing me. It sounds great, but it means he couldn't hold that position on his own team for the back half of his career...and I think this is giving him credit for the three outfield positions, first base, and DH. I'm not sure how much time Brett actually spent in the outfield, but all of his all-star nods came at third or first, so I'm gonna guess not much. Just about anyone at the MLB level can play first. Schmidt could've converted easily and could have been a fine DH had he been in the American League and padded his stats a bit more, and I'd be willing to bet he gets those couple RBIs without giving up average.
My dirty math tells me that Brett got roughly 4 more hits per 100 ABs than Schmidt. Schmidt hit roughly 4 more HRs per 100 ABs than Brett. Plus Schmidt was a career third baseman. The nod has to go to Schmidt.
...but I will say, in 1980, I'd have taken Brett. LOL
52-90 All Sports, Mostly Topps, Mostly HOF, and some assorted wax.
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
Here's some info if anyone cares. Not sure of the opinions of many of you on WAR, WAR7, and JAWS stats. I personally like them all. I picked these 7 players to show.
WAR Leaders (A single number that presents the number of wins the player added):
Schmidt- 106.8
Mathews- 96.6
Beltre- 94.6
Boggs- 91.4
Brett- 88.7
Jones- 85.2
Robinson- 78.4
WAR7 Leaders (The sum of the seven best WAR seasons for a player. Need not be seven years in a row):
Schmidt- 58.7
Boggs- 56.4
Mathews- 54.5
Brett- 53.3
Beltre- 49.3
Jones- 46.8
Robinson- 45.8
JAWS Leaders: (Contains a combination of Career and 7 Year Peak WAR totals allowing for comparison to average Hall of Famers by position):
Schmidt- 82.8
Mathews- 75.6
Boggs- 73.9
Beltre- 72.0
Brett- 71.0
Jones- 66.0
Robinson- 62.1
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 77.97% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.26% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
I think you guys convinced me with this Schmidt-Brett debate, and I'm changing my mind. I hope this doesn't shock anybody since I'm a big Phillies fan.
I'm dropping Brett to #3 on my all time third baseman list and placing Eddie Mathews at #2.
this thread is the gift that keeps on giving
Dallas, as always, with clear, compelling and rational analysis.
Very entertaining thread!
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.
This.
Gates Effing Brown. Unless you watched the Tigers closely in 1968 or are a student of the game you can’t believe the season he had. Primarily as a pinch hitter.
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......
And that’s when the fight officially started
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......
When the Gator entered the on deck circle and swung two or three bats around you put down the frosted pop tart and paid attention.
and there there was Ike Brown............
Coming off the riots the city needed it in the worst way. Everyone forget. For a short while.
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......
And...there ya go. Dallas did the heavy lifting for me.
Uh...you attributed a quote to me that I did not say.
I never before closely compared Mathews versus Brett.
Mathews was better, hence the Brett drop to #3.
I watched Brett during the 1980 WS when the Phillies beat the Royals. Brett just didn't look comfortable out there at third base. Others must have noticed that as well who watched a lot of American League games. Which is a likely reason why despite his excellent bat, on a number of all time lists that I have seen, Brett drops even further to 4th, 5th or 6th.
For now though, i still have Brett at third best. But I'll be forced to drop Brett further if i see more evidence that impells me to do that.
You wouldn’t either if you had a load in your drawers
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......
That’s a silly way of looking at it. It’s kind of how you know you lost the debate when you reach for this non sense. Did Schmidt and Brett go in the same year? What were they 98% and 96% anyway? As you pointed out Schmidt didn’t get along with the press. I’m shocked he got 96+ % actually.
The following are a list of players that BOTH Schmidt and Brett had more percent of HOF votes then:
Willie Mays
Hank Aaron
Babe Ruth
Mickey Mantle
Ted Williams
Joe DiMaggio
Roberto Clemente
Gene Tenace
Embarrassing. I would argue that the HOF voters have always been inept, continue to be inept and are often flat out dumb asses. I actually do think this forum would do a better job.
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......
Dallas- what about Bretts' 118 RBI in 117 games vs. Schmidt's 121 in 150 games in 1980.
Remember, you're the one who said Schmidt was the much better RBI man.
Now since you're a Schmidt supporter you simply ignore a stat like that because it doesn't support your argument? LOL.
That means if Brett had played in 33 more games and knocked in a total of 3 more runs
he would have dropped to Schmidts' level.
Sorry, you're way off base here thinking Schmidt was even comparable to Brett in 1980.
If Brett had played in 33 more games in 1980 and gone hitless he still would have hit for a higher
average than Schmidt. You could put Miss Daisy in for George Brett in those 33 games and you would
still be better off picking Brett and Miss Daisy over Mike Schmidt in 1980.
Your argument that Schmidt and Brett were about equal that year has been rebuffed.
You've failed. Career wise, you have a case for Schmidt. 1980, suddenly OPS and OPS+ just don't
work, huh? You're laughable! .390 against .286 doesn't matter?
For pete's sake- Brett's batting average was higher than Schmits' OBP, yet that doesn't matter because
the Dallas nerd says it doesn't.
Why don't you just try to stay objective since you purport to be the board expert?
Stupid list…. Mistlin
So many words, so little intelligent thought behind them. Since I now know you can't read, find someone who can and have them read my last post to you.
I'll wait.
...
...
...
OK, now that you know I already said Brett was better at the plate than Schmidt in 1980 - a lot better for the games he played, and still better even taking into account all the games he missed - do you see now why your post here makes you look so foolish? If the title of this thread was "George Brett - One of the best baseball players of all time, and easily the best 3rd baseman in 1980 for 117 games" then nobody, especially me, would have argued the point. But here we are 100+ posts into an entirely different thread where we've all been arguing about who was the best all-time, and you're arguing with yourself and the imaginary demons in your head about the first 117 games of 1980. Sad.
I found someone to read your post to me, halfway through they said you obviously
know nothing about baseball and refused to read any more.
Anyone who thinks its a tossup between who to take in 1980 between Brett and Schmidt
obviously just doesn't understand the game very well and shouldn't pretend to be a board
expert on baseball. Understand?
Would the Phillies have still won without Schmidt in 1980. Of course. Strong supporting cast.
The Royals without Brett? No way. He carried the team.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
I accept your apology for completely misunderstanding what I wrote, insulting me for writing something I didn't write, and then pretending none of it happened. I accept that these things can happen when dealing with the tiny-brained folk. But what I can't accept, and could never possibly believe, is that you found another human being with a brain that was even tinier. Nobody who knows how to read, anyway.
It is slowly dawning on me that replying to people who can't read really serves no purpose. I did answer the Gene Tenace question already, but you'll need to find someone to read it to you. The logical fallacy you are employing here is known as a straw man. I never said that career OPS+ was the sole determinant of "better" with respect to hitting, and specifically did not say that Schmidt was better than Brett solely because his career OPS+ was higher than Brett's. You, like Darin, are not arguing against a proposition that anybody has actually made, but rather against a proposition that your tiny brain has created out of words that others have used but that you do not understand. You are right about one thing, though. I am confused. What confuses me is why anyone as exceptionally stupid as you are is typing on a computer rather than watching My Little Pony videos. Maybe I need to speak to your mother.
Ok I was wrong. That’s when the fight started
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 was hoping for a battle of wits, but my opponents are unarmed.
What I don't understand is how people state their beliefs, say it is not even debatable, then debate it for days on end.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Because not even debatable is not the same as etched in stone. When it's etched in stone then it's really not debatable any longer.
Sure hope i cleared that up.
POTD!
Is this the same as a "stone cold mortal lock," or was that Stalin? 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.
I didn't apologize for it.
How about you apologize for pretending to be a board expert on baseball.
When you stated it was a tossup on who to take between Brett and Schmidt in 1980 you
lost all credibility. Yeah, sure, its a tossup on who to take between a .390 and .286 hitter.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
This board is now accepting applications for a baseball expert.
Our so called expert, Dallasactuary, has displayed complete ineptitude.
We would consider a trade, however we know we couldn't get anything in return
for Dallas since he's worthless as trade bait so we're just going to cut him loose.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
I thought I heard warning alarm sirens regarding a Stalin alert in the Phillies thread, but i was probably mistaken.
You do realize he was referring to you 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......
Nobody could possibly be as stupid as you are pretending to be, and I am at a loss trying to understand why anyone would go to the lengths you are going to convince all of us that you really are this stupid. I've made quite a few posts in this thread, but all you have to do is look at the first one to see four different measurements that I cited. While it is possible that you don't know the meaning of the word "two", I simply don't believe it. So if your goal was to convince me that you are a drooling imbecile, you've failed despite your Herculean efforts. Pretending to be as stupid as you are pretending to be actually requires quite a bit of thought.
You, on the other hand, are what you appear to be.
i think ive changed my diaper 17 times
+1
Figured I'd get a cheat post in before the lock.
Brett still has you beat.
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......
The only winners in this thread are the spectators. The Brett guys aren't going to convince the Schmidt guys, and vice versa. Yet they continue to try. Maybe it's for those of us sitting on the fence. Some good arguments made on both sides. But again, we're splitting hairs here. I'm not gonna kick you in the shins for choosing either. My choice, on any given day, would probably be reflected by the rest of my lineup. All things equal, I'd probably choose Schmidt for the power and defense... or just punt, and take Matthews.
The suggestion that Brett played six positions in a best third baseman argument is kinda killing me. It sounds great, but it means he couldn't hold that position on his own team for the back half of his career...and I think this is giving him credit for the three outfield positions, first base, and DH. I'm not sure how much time Brett actually spent in the outfield, but all of his all-star nods came at third or first, so I'm gonna guess not much. Just about anyone at the MLB level can play first. Schmidt could've converted easily and could have been a fine DH had he been in the American League and padded his stats a bit more, and I'd be willing to bet he gets those couple RBIs without giving up average.
My dirty math tells me that Brett got roughly 4 more hits per 100 ABs than Schmidt. Schmidt hit roughly 4 more HRs per 100 ABs than Brett. Plus Schmidt was a career third baseman. The nod has to go to Schmidt.
...but I will say, in 1980, I'd have taken Brett. LOL
Nice post @vintagefun
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......