@stevek said:
This topic was recently discussed in painstaking detail in another thread. The bottom line is that Schmidt's defense was markedly superior to Brett, and for a third baseman, solid defense at that position is extremely important to winning baseball games.
We all agree that Brett's hitting surpasses Schmidt in certain aspects, and that is notable. However when combining offensive production and defensive capability, Schmidt clearly wins out over Brett.
Stevek couldn't have said it better. In his own words in the fourth post of this thread, stevek said that we all agree that Brett's hitting surpasses Schmidt in certain aspects (like the postseason), but we have proven his first statement to be totally inaccurate.
Brett and Schmidt were .955 to .951 respectively at third base during their careers. They both had the same speed, quickness, and agility.
Like I said before, if Brett had a lifetime .355 batting average and won 11 batting titles, and Schmidt had a .350 lifetime batting average and only won 1 batting title, because Bill Madlock hit .377 every year in the NL, that would not make Brett that much of a greater hitter than Schmidt. They were basically equal in this scenario. Just because Schmidt won those gold gloves was because he did not have a Bill Madlock (Nettles) in his league.
Long live George Brett. The greatest third baseman of all time !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Instead of copying and pasting all the points that destroyed 1970s in the other thread, including his falsehoods he tried to promote with natural grass and Schmidt fielding, including his methods that make six other third basemen better than Brett. Lets use more of his methods to determine who was the best.
1970s neglects sample size and says that big games are all that matters. So in his own method, looking at THE BIGGEST STAGE, here is their WPA in the World Series:
Mike Schmidt WPA in World Series play .12
George Brett WPA in World Series play -.15. That is NEGATIVE .15
So the two main things 1970s has been harping on, WPA, and how they do in big games. Mike Schmidt beats Brett again.
Checkmate. Again. Sixth or seventh check mate?? LOL
Lets not forget the errors that Brett made that cost the ROyals in the ALCS...no wonder why Brett's teams were only 3-6 in the post season...because he couldn't field in the LCS and he did not hit when it counted in the World Series. The only reasons why Brett even got one WS was because he rode Brett Saberhagens' coattails in 1985, and because a blind umpire gave them the 1985 series. Meanwhile, Schmidt actually won a WS MVP.
LMAO...your own methods painted you in a corner again. You lost again. You must really have a low IQ or severe case of idol worship.
@Skin2 said:
Instead of copying and pasting all the points that destroyed 1970s in the other thread, including his falsehoods he tried to promote with natural grass and Schmidt fielding, including his methods that make six other third basemen better than Brett. Lets use more of his methods to determine who was the best.
1970s neglects sample size and says that big games are all that matters. So in his own method, looking at THE BIGGEST STAGE, here is their WPA in the World Series:
Mike Schmidt WPA in World Series play .12
George Brett WPA in World Series play -.15. That is NEGATIVE .15
So the two main things 1970s has been harping on, WPA, and how they do in big games. Mike Schmidt beats Brett again.
Checkmate. Again. Sixth or seventh check mate?? LOL
Lets not forget the errors that Brett made that cost the ROyals in the ALCS...no wonder why Brett's teams were only 3-6 in the post season...because he couldn't field in the LCS and he did not hit when it counted in the World Series. The only reasons why Brett even got one WS was because he rode Brett Saberhagens' coattails in 1985, and because a blind umpire gave them the 1985 series. Meanwhile, Schmidt actually won a WS MVP.
LMAO...your own methods painted you in a corner again. You lost again. You must really have a low IQ or severe case of idol worship.
@Skin2 said:
Instead of copying and pasting all the points that destroyed 1970s in the other thread, including his falsehoods he tried to promote with natural grass and Schmidt fielding, including his methods that make six other third basemen better than Brett. Lets use more of his methods to determine who was the best.
1970s neglects sample size and says that big games are all that matters. So in his own method, looking at THE BIGGEST STAGE, here is their WPA in the World Series:
Mike Schmidt WPA in World Series play .12
George Brett WPA in World Series play -.15. That is NEGATIVE .15
So the two main things 1970s has been harping on, WPA, and how they do in big games. Mike Schmidt beats Brett again.
Checkmate. Again. Sixth or seventh check mate?? LOL
Lets not forget the errors that Brett made that cost the ROyals in the ALCS...no wonder why Brett's teams were only 3-6 in the post season...because he couldn't field in the LCS and he did not hit when it counted in the World Series. The only reasons why Brett even got one WS was because he rode Brett Saberhagens' coattails in 1985, and because a blind umpire gave them the 1985 series. Meanwhile, Schmidt actually won a WS MVP.
LMAO...your own methods painted you in a corner again. You lost again. You must really have a low IQ or severe case of idol worship.
Please don’t feed the troll.
I know. It is pretty evident the guy is a troll. Even Darin has seen the factual evidence and has stopped saying stuff to the contrary.
I just find it funny that in 1970s own method, Schmidt actually beats Brett in WPA in World Series play. In 1970s words, in the end, if you are a GM, you know George Brett won't hit when it counts in the WS, and the only way he wins is if Saberhagen and the blind ump come too, lol.
Meanwhile, if you are a GM, you can expect Mike Schmidt to carry you to World Series Victory at least once. Choice is easy in 1970's very own criteria...choose the guy who will carry you to a WORLD SERIES WIN...Schmidt.
"As Bill James once said, if he’d hit for a higher average, he’d be the greatest player to play the game. Schmidt led the National League eight times in home runs and was first or second nine times in WAR among NL position players."
Agree or disagree with Bill James about his Sabermetrics, James has a lot of respect in the baseball community. For James to lavish such extremely high praise on Mike Schmidt says a lot.
Nobody, not even George Brett fans, would ever think of George Brett as a "greatest player to play the game."
George Brett was not to be counted on in the World series where it mattered most. He had a NEGATIVE WPA in the World Series, so as 1970s said, if you were a GM you can count on George Brett being a negative factor in the World Series. No wonder why they only won a single WOrld Series, and that one was because of Bret Saberhagen and a blind umpire. Brett rode the coattails.
Sorry, you lose by your own method. Again.
NEgative WPA in the World Series. The LCS doesn't mean anything if you can't win the big one lol. Or if you can't field in the LCS either. His fielding errors eliminated his positive hitting anyway...hence why the lost. LOST.
Let's discuss defense for just a second. Is there anyone out there who truly thinks that because Brett managed to play 39 2/3 innings at shortstop over his 2200 career games means he's incredibly defensively versatile? Or that the fact that he played 505 games at DH is a positive defensive accomplishment?
Finally, regarding Seitzer: given that we all accept Brett as a superstar, can anyone think of another occasion when an established superstar was moved to a less comfortable position to accommodate a hot young player? In 2013, for example, the Red Sox had a very promising second baseman who was blocked by Dustin Pedroia, so they shifted Mookie Betts (not Pedroia) to right field. In any event, the whole Seitzer argument falls apart when you notice that in 1985-6 he played 136 games at first and only 55 at third.
@1970s said:
Having started this thread, my argument was, and always will be that both players were relatively equal during the regular season.
@1970s said:
We discussed defense already. At 3B Schmidt was a lifetime .955 fielder to Brett's .951.
Neither one had an advantage in agility or quickness.
Their fielding is basically a draw.
These both still make me laugh.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Don't tell me that anyone anywhere thinks that fielding percentage in the only criterion as to who was a better defender. Question: is Jose Iglesias the best defensive shortstop of all time?
@daltex said:
Don't tell me that anyone anywhere thinks that fielding percentage in the only criterion as to who was a better defender. Question: is Jose Iglesias the best defensive shortstop of all time?
and he really has nothing more to offer except perhaps which rack pack from 1975 has certain players in certain places.
if we were at a bar and this interminable debate was taking place, i'd sweep the floors, clean the dishes and take out the damn trash to keep the rounds coming
Brett World Series Win Probability Added..... Negative .12
Mike Schmidt World Series Win Probability Added .15
You can count on Brett to disappear when it counts most.
When you add the negative WPA that his errors led to in the ALCS...those are negative too, LMAO.
One player carried his team to a World Series victory and won MVP. The other was a negative contributor in the WS and their team won because of Bret Saberhagen.
So in the end, a couple lucky hot streaks for Brett in the LCS were no different than a few lucky hot streaks in the regular season, because without World Series victories, they mean the same. When you add Brett's NEGATIVE WPA fielding errors, then he was also negative in the LCS....which is why they lost. Lmao. LOST.
Checkmate again. Ninth checkmate.
1970s very own criteria, when it matters most, Schmidt wins again. Period.
@galaxy27 said:
if we were at a bar and this interminable debate was taking place, i'd sweep the floors, clean the dishes and take out the damn trash to keep the rounds coming
There is no question in my mind that if there were beers involved punches would have been thrown by post 100
@galaxy27 said:
if we were at a bar and this interminable debate was taking place, i'd sweep the floors, clean the dishes and take out the damn trash to keep the rounds coming
There is no question in my mind that if there were beers involved punches would have been thrown by post 100
And if you are not on the side of perkdog in that melee...you would lose again.
Here is a quote from an article in the Kansas City Star, by Joe Posnanski, in regard to the 1977 ALCS...which the Royals lost:
"We’re going to beat those ($#&$#%),” Billy Martin said.
Game two, Yankee Stadium: Yankees win 6-2
The big blow was a two-run error made by Brett,"
LMAO.
Those are one of the errors I highlighted earlier for you. So when you add those things into his few lucky hot streaks in the ALCS, the sum result is his WPA was negative, and obviously didn't play good enough to win, or they would have.
Are those the fielding perentages of a high school player? LOL, looks like it.
Mike Schmidt WOrld Series WPA .15
George Brett WOrld Series WPA NEGATIVE .12
Brett failed to hit when it counted in the World Series. Schmidt did not. Actually, Schmidt carried them to a World Series. Brett was carried to a World Series by Saberhagen and an umpire.
Schmidt was superior as a hitter
Schmidt was superior as a fielder
Schmidt was superior in World Series play. This is all that really matters if you believe in post season results.
Brett had a few more lucky hot streaks hitting in the ALCS
Brett's poor fielding in those ALCS rendered those hot streaks meaningless...and they lost.
1970s reminds me of the guy in the movies who gets beat up and just keeps on getting up and getting up only to be knocked to the ground again and again.
garnettstyle is the guy cheering on our man who's getting clobbered.
The guy just won't quit.
I am now going to be like the guys who can't stand watching the fight anymore as it has become pathetic. I am going to wander off and do something else.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@galaxy27 said:
if we were at a bar and this interminable debate was taking place, i'd sweep the floors, clean the dishes and take out the damn trash to keep the rounds coming
There is no question in my mind that if there were beers involved punches would have been thrown by post 100
And if you are not on the side of perkdog in that melee...you would lose again.
Haha thanks Buddy, truth be told I might not win but I will step into the arena anytime 👍
Let's have the "scholars" on the board explain to us who was better in the postseason.
LOL+++++++++++++++++++
You forgot a few:
Here is a quote from an article in the Kansas City Star, by Joe Posnanski, in regard to the 1977 ALCS...which the Royals lost:
"We’re going to beat those ($#&$#%),” Billy Martin said.
Game two, Yankee Stadium: Yankees win 6-2
The big blow was a two-run error made by Brett,"
LMAO.
Those are one of the errors I highlighted earlier for you. So when you add those things into his few lucky hot streaks in the ALCS, the sum result is his WPA was negative, and obviously didn't play good enough to win, or they would have.
Are those the fielding perentages of a high school player? LOL, looks like it.
Mike Schmidt WOrld Series WPA .15
George Brett WOrld Series WPA NEGATIVE .12
Brett failed to hit when it counted in the World Series. Schmidt did not. Actually, Schmidt carried them to a World Series. Brett was carried to a World Series by Saberhagen and an umpire.
Schmidt was superior as a hitter
Schmidt was superior as a fielder
Schmidt was superior in World Series play. This is all that really matters if you believe in post season results.
Brett had a few more lucky hot streaks hitting in the ALCS
Brett's poor fielding in those ALCS rendered those hot streaks meaningless...and they lost.
@daltex said:
Don't tell me that anyone anywhere thinks that fielding percentage in the only criterion as to who was a better defender. Question: is Jose Iglesias the best defensive shortstop of all time?
Present your case daltex. I'll get the popcorn. Bring it on !!!
Even the dunce can join the fray if he chooses, but he has made too much of a fool of himself already in this thread,
and he really has nothing more to offer except perhaps which rack pack from 1975 has certain players in certain places.
I have no "case" except to say three things:
1) Fewer than 40 innings at shortstop and more than 500 games at DH don't prove defensive versatility
2) Raw fielding percentage says very little about the merits of a defender
3) No superstar in history has been moved off his position to accommodate a hot minor leaguer
My point is simply that your claims about Brett's superiority don't say what you claim they say. Brett may have been a superior third baseman than Schmidt, but your evidence hasn't come close to making that case.
@daltex said:
Don't tell me that anyone anywhere thinks that fielding percentage in the only criterion as to who was a better defender. Question: is Jose Iglesias the best defensive shortstop of all time?
Present your case daltex. I'll get the popcorn. Bring it on !!!
I said a long time ago - in which thread I don't remember - that it takes a certain intelligence to appear as utterly moronic as you appear to be. But you slipped here. It is central to the idiot persona that you have been affecting in these Brett/Schmidt threads that fielding percentage is the only statistic necessary to measure fielding ability, and you have persisted with that argument in the face of withering criticism and derision. So why would you now ask daltex to "make a case" for the same proposition that you have been making all along? I get it; when you saw someone else say it, it just looked stupid. What you forgot is that it was your own patented stupidity that he was presenting back to you, and instead of instantly agreeing, you laughed at it. Busted!
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@JoeBanzai said:
1970s reminds me of the guy in the movies who gets beat up and just keeps on getting up and getting up only to be knocked to the ground again and again.
garnettstyle is the guy cheering on our man who's getting clobbered.
The guy just won't quit.
I am now going to be like the guys who can't stand watching the fight anymore as it has become pathetic. I am going to wander off and do something else.
You ever see Cool hand Luke? It sounds like you're describing that scene with Newman and George Kennedy.
Comments
He wins 5th place! Great job George! Congratulations.
Good thing Killebrew doesn't really qualify or he drops to #6.
Have a nice day!
Did you ever work for Joseph Goebbels?
Yea, i know...I went and did it.
Godwin's law.
Instead of copying and pasting all the points that destroyed 1970s in the other thread, including his falsehoods he tried to promote with natural grass and Schmidt fielding, including his methods that make six other third basemen better than Brett. Lets use more of his methods to determine who was the best.
1970s neglects sample size and says that big games are all that matters. So in his own method, looking at THE BIGGEST STAGE, here is their WPA in the World Series:
Mike Schmidt WPA in World Series play .12
George Brett WPA in World Series play -.15. That is NEGATIVE .15
So the two main things 1970s has been harping on, WPA, and how they do in big games. Mike Schmidt beats Brett again.
Checkmate. Again. Sixth or seventh check mate?? LOL
Lets not forget the errors that Brett made that cost the ROyals in the ALCS...no wonder why Brett's teams were only 3-6 in the post season...because he couldn't field in the LCS and he did not hit when it counted in the World Series. The only reasons why Brett even got one WS was because he rode Brett Saberhagens' coattails in 1985, and because a blind umpire gave them the 1985 series. Meanwhile, Schmidt actually won a WS MVP.
LMAO...your own methods painted you in a corner again. You lost again. You must really have a low IQ or severe case of idol worship.
Please don’t feed the troll.
I know. It is pretty evident the guy is a troll. Even Darin has seen the factual evidence and has stopped saying stuff to the contrary.
I just find it funny that in 1970s own method, Schmidt actually beats Brett in WPA in World Series play. In 1970s words, in the end, if you are a GM, you know George Brett won't hit when it counts in the WS, and the only way he wins is if Saberhagen and the blind ump come too, lol.
Meanwhile, if you are a GM, you can expect Mike Schmidt to carry you to World Series Victory at least once. Choice is easy in 1970's very own criteria...choose the guy who will carry you to a WORLD SERIES WIN...Schmidt.
It's already checkmate, but just to add to it:
Pasted:
"As Bill James once said, if he’d hit for a higher average, he’d be the greatest player to play the game. Schmidt led the National League eight times in home runs and was first or second nine times in WAR among NL position players."
Agree or disagree with Bill James about his Sabermetrics, James has a lot of respect in the baseball community. For James to lavish such extremely high praise on Mike Schmidt says a lot.
Nobody, not even George Brett fans, would ever think of George Brett as a "greatest player to play the game."
George Brett was not to be counted on in the World series where it mattered most. He had a NEGATIVE WPA in the World Series, so as 1970s said, if you were a GM you can count on George Brett being a negative factor in the World Series. No wonder why they only won a single WOrld Series, and that one was because of Bret Saberhagen and a blind umpire. Brett rode the coattails.
Sorry, you lose by your own method. Again.
NEgative WPA in the World Series. The LCS doesn't mean anything if you can't win the big one lol. Or if you can't field in the LCS either. His fielding errors eliminated his positive hitting anyway...hence why the lost. LOST.
Let's discuss defense for just a second. Is there anyone out there who truly thinks that because Brett managed to play 39 2/3 innings at shortstop over his 2200 career games means he's incredibly defensively versatile? Or that the fact that he played 505 games at DH is a positive defensive accomplishment?
Finally, regarding Seitzer: given that we all accept Brett as a superstar, can anyone think of another occasion when an established superstar was moved to a less comfortable position to accommodate a hot young player? In 2013, for example, the Red Sox had a very promising second baseman who was blocked by Dustin Pedroia, so they shifted Mookie Betts (not Pedroia) to right field. In any event, the whole Seitzer argument falls apart when you notice that in 1985-6 he played 136 games at first and only 55 at third.
These both still make me laugh.
Don't tell me that anyone anywhere thinks that fielding percentage in the only criterion as to who was a better defender. Question: is Jose Iglesias the best defensive shortstop of all time?
"No thought of any substance is ever presented beyond the hundredth post"
-Mary Shelly
I'm only aware of one person, and he doesn't know that he's making a fool of himself. Shhhhhh. Don't tell him.
if we were at a bar and this interminable debate was taking place, i'd sweep the floors, clean the dishes and take out the damn trash to keep the rounds coming
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Brett World Series Win Probability Added..... Negative .12
Mike Schmidt World Series Win Probability Added .15
You can count on Brett to disappear when it counts most.
When you add the negative WPA that his errors led to in the ALCS...those are negative too, LMAO.
One player carried his team to a World Series victory and won MVP. The other was a negative contributor in the WS and their team won because of Bret Saberhagen.
So in the end, a couple lucky hot streaks for Brett in the LCS were no different than a few lucky hot streaks in the regular season, because without World Series victories, they mean the same. When you add Brett's NEGATIVE WPA fielding errors, then he was also negative in the LCS....which is why they lost. Lmao. LOST.
Checkmate again. Ninth checkmate.
1970s very own criteria, when it matters most, Schmidt wins again. Period.
There is no question in my mind that if there were beers involved punches would have been thrown by post 100
And if you are not on the side of perkdog in that melee...you would lose again.
Here is a quote from an article in the Kansas City Star, by Joe Posnanski, in regard to the 1977 ALCS...which the Royals lost:
"We’re going to beat those ($#&$#%),” Billy Martin said.
Game two, Yankee Stadium: Yankees win 6-2
The big blow was a two-run error made by Brett,"
LMAO.
Those are one of the errors I highlighted earlier for you. So when you add those things into his few lucky hot streaks in the ALCS, the sum result is his WPA was negative, and obviously didn't play good enough to win, or they would have.
Brett's fielding percentage in 1976-1978 ALCS
1976 .769
1977 .895
1978 .917
Are those the fielding perentages of a high school player? LOL, looks like it.
Mike Schmidt WOrld Series WPA .15
George Brett WOrld Series WPA NEGATIVE .12
Brett failed to hit when it counted in the World Series. Schmidt did not. Actually, Schmidt carried them to a World Series. Brett was carried to a World Series by Saberhagen and an umpire.
Schmidt was superior as a hitter
Schmidt was superior as a fielder
Schmidt was superior in World Series play. This is all that really matters if you believe in post season results.
Brett had a few more lucky hot streaks hitting in the ALCS
Brett's poor fielding in those ALCS rendered those hot streaks meaningless...and they lost.
1970s reminds me of the guy in the movies who gets beat up and just keeps on getting up and getting up only to be knocked to the ground again and again.
garnettstyle is the guy cheering on our man who's getting clobbered.
The guy just won't quit.
I am now going to be like the guys who can't stand watching the fight anymore as it has become pathetic. I am going to wander off and do something else.
Haha thanks Buddy, truth be told I might not win but I will step into the arena anytime 👍
You forgot a few:
Here is a quote from an article in the Kansas City Star, by Joe Posnanski, in regard to the 1977 ALCS...which the Royals lost:
"We’re going to beat those ($#&$#%),” Billy Martin said.
Game two, Yankee Stadium: Yankees win 6-2
The big blow was a two-run error made by Brett,"
LMAO.
Those are one of the errors I highlighted earlier for you. So when you add those things into his few lucky hot streaks in the ALCS, the sum result is his WPA was negative, and obviously didn't play good enough to win, or they would have.
Brett's fielding percentage in 1976-1978 ALCS
1976 .769
1977 .895
1978 .917
Are those the fielding perentages of a high school player? LOL, looks like it.
Mike Schmidt WOrld Series WPA .15
George Brett WOrld Series WPA NEGATIVE .12
Brett failed to hit when it counted in the World Series. Schmidt did not. Actually, Schmidt carried them to a World Series. Brett was carried to a World Series by Saberhagen and an umpire.
Schmidt was superior as a hitter
Schmidt was superior as a fielder
Schmidt was superior in World Series play. This is all that really matters if you believe in post season results.
Brett had a few more lucky hot streaks hitting in the ALCS
Brett's poor fielding in those ALCS rendered those hot streaks meaningless...and they lost.
I have no "case" except to say three things:
1) Fewer than 40 innings at shortstop and more than 500 games at DH don't prove defensive versatility
2) Raw fielding percentage says very little about the merits of a defender
3) No superstar in history has been moved off his position to accommodate a hot minor leaguer
My point is simply that your claims about Brett's superiority don't say what you claim they say. Brett may have been a superior third baseman than Schmidt, but your evidence hasn't come close to making that case.
I said a long time ago - in which thread I don't remember - that it takes a certain intelligence to appear as utterly moronic as you appear to be. But you slipped here. It is central to the idiot persona that you have been affecting in these Brett/Schmidt threads that fielding percentage is the only statistic necessary to measure fielding ability, and you have persisted with that argument in the face of withering criticism and derision. So why would you now ask daltex to "make a case" for the same proposition that you have been making all along? I get it; when you saw someone else say it, it just looked stupid. What you forgot is that it was your own patented stupidity that he was presenting back to you, and instead of instantly agreeing, you laughed at it. Busted!
You ever see Cool hand Luke? It sounds like you're describing that scene with Newman and George Kennedy.
1970's has taken some blows, but he's doing all right.