Modern players catch the scorn but Brett, Gwynn, & Carew were part time players for half+ careers

1948_Swell_Robinson · June 3, 2025 6:15AM

Yup, George Brett played less than 140 games in 11 out of his 20 MLB seasons(not counting his cup of coffee debut year although that should count based on some of the methods done on here in the past). In 1981 he was on place for less than 140 as well.

Tony Gwynn was part time in 10 of his 18 years(not even counting his first or last seasons).

Rod Carew 10 of 19 years a part time player.

Between the three players combined they only managed to muster just ONE 160 game season. Gwynn did it once.

For whatever reason, hook or crook, these guys did not at answer the bell. As modern players get scorn for that, lets not forget theses guy did that too.

Ding them the same way you ding the modern guys who miss games.

1948_Swell_Robinson · June 3, 2025 6:27AM

On the opposite end of the spectrum from that era:

Mike Schmidt only had three seasons less than 140 games out of 17 years(not counting cup of coffee year). He didn't sit vs Nolan Ryan to help save his percentages. He played hurt.

Eddie Murray only had TWO seasons less than 140(not counting his final year) out of 20 MLB seasons. He played through injuries that hurt his percentages but still better than a replacement.

Wade Boggs only four out of 16 seasons were less than 140 (not counting his Rookie year when he was brought up late or his final season).

Bogg's part time seasons were with the Yankee teams when they platooned more. With Boston, Boggs played ten seasons and was over 140 in all ten(usually over 150). Again, the only time was 1983 when they brought him up from the minors too late.

Boggs answered the bell and played when hurt and didn't sit vs tough matchups as much...the opposite of Brett and Gwynn.

Maywood · June 3, 2025 6:44AM

It doesn't seem like a fair or balanced assessment to refer to a player who is in 85%+ games as a "part time" player. In addition to that, it's hard to quantify injuries, to judge the severity of injuries which keep players out of games. True, some players just like people have a greater tolerance of pain and discomfort which allows them to "play through" certain things, but without knowing what was going on with the players mentioned it's sort of hard to render judgement upon them.

I would be the first to agree that of all the major sports MLB requires the least amount of extreme athleticism. At the same time it might also require the most intensely specific skill in certain areas. An MLB season is long and the players are called upon to be available day after day after day after day............................By September it starts to take its toll. Instead of criticizing the entire of MLB as "part time" I except that the guys, the ones mentioned above, are just quite a bit more durable and resilient then the average player.

1948_Swell_Robinson · June 3, 2025 6:47AM

@Maywood said:
It doesn't seem like a fair or balanced assessment to refer to a player who is in 85%+ games as a "part time" player. In addition to that, it's hard to quantify injuries, to judge the severity of injuries which keep players out of games. True, some players just like people have a greater tolerance of pain and discomfort which allows them to "play through" certain things, but without knowing what was going on with the players mentioned it's sort of hard to render judgement upon them.

I would be the first to agree that of all the major sports MLB requires the least amount of extreme athleticism. At the same time it might also require the most intensely specific skill in certain areas. An MLB season is long and the players are called upon to be available day after day after day after day............................By September it starts to take its toll. Instead of criticizing the entire of MLB as "part time" I except that the guys, the ones mentioned above, are just quite a bit more durable and resilient then the average player.

Absolutely is hard to draw a line...however, that line is drawn easily and often and is applied to modern players at a whim, but those three players mentioned in this thread get a complete pass on the same criteria from the same people who do that.

JoeBanzai · June 3, 2025 8:01AM

I have brought this factor into my player evaluations many times in the past.
When a great player misses games, it hurts the team more than when an average player does.
I'm not necessarily criticizing the player, but when he sits out, his replacement is usually quite a bit worse.
By the way, Carew was in the National Guard and missed games because of that. Not that it really matters, but wanted to share that information.

craig44 · June 3, 2025 10:15AM

Murray and Ripken (until his last couple of seasons) were true iron men. both played in over 90% of his teams games.

I would agree that Brett missed time over the years, but he did play in 85% of his teams games, not including his cup of coffee rookie season. I wouldnt consider 85% ¨part time¨

Maywood · June 3, 2025 12:05PM

@1948_Swell_Robinson said: Absolutely is hard to draw a line...however, that line is drawn easily and often and is applied to modern players at a whim, but those three players mentioned in this thread get a complete pass on the same criteria from the same people who do that.

The members who do that should probably be challenged when they do.

ArtVandelay · June 3, 2025 12:14PM

Gwynn, Carew, and Brett all collected 3000+ hits in their career. Only 33 players in history have done that. Their legacy is cemented.

Basebal21 · June 3, 2025 3:34PM

Gywnn had some low years the last three years of his career. I wouldnt really say he was a part time player. Injuries happen and unfortunately theres not really anything you can do about it. He played a lot of games when he was healthy. Brett being a catcher Im sure you know they never play evey game because of the stress on the body.

I would say the line should be injuries or not. I would exclude catchers though thats just a really different thing.

craig44 · June 3, 2025 5:39PM

@Basebal21 said:
Gywnn had some low years the last three years of his career. I wouldnt really say he was a part time player. Injuries happen and unfortunately theres not really anything you can do about it. He played a lot of games when he was healthy. Brett being a catcher Im sure you know they never play evey game because of the stress on the body.

I would say the line should be injuries or not. I would exclude catchers though thats just a really different thing.

Brett was 3b.

Basebal21 · June 3, 2025 6:46PM

@craig44 said:

@Basebal21 said:
Gywnn had some low years the last three years of his career. I wouldnt really say he was a part time player. Injuries happen and unfortunately theres not really anything you can do about it. He played a lot of games when he was healthy. Brett being a catcher Im sure you know they never play evey game because of the stress on the body.

I would say the line should be injuries or not. I would exclude catchers though thats just a really different thing.

Brett was 3b.

3rd First yea youre right. Had him confused for a second with someone else. Either way excluding his rookie year he only played one year less than a 100 games and three years less than 120. I wouldnt call someone a part time player if they start all the time when healthy.

1948_Swell_Robinson · June 4, 2025 8:21AM

@craig44 said:

@Basebal21 said:
Gywnn had some low years the last three years of his career. I wouldnt really say he was a part time player. Injuries happen and unfortunately theres not really anything you can do about it. He played a lot of games when he was healthy. Brett being a catcher Im sure you know they never play evey game because of the stress on the body.

I would say the line should be injuries or not. I would exclude catchers though thats just a really different thing.

Brett was 3b.

He was a good catcher.

1948_Swell_Robinson · June 4, 2025 9:08AM

@craig44 said:
Murray and Ripken (until his last couple of seasons) were true iron men. both played in over 90% of his teams games.

I would agree that Brett missed time over the years, but he did play in 85% of his teams games, not including his cup of coffee rookie season. I wouldnt consider 85% ¨part time¨

Not full time like the other elites that did it tho. 85% to 95% is a big difference in the baseball world. Otherwise that would be the same as saying a .270 batting average isn't really any different than .300 batting average.

Murray was at 95% (not counting his last year he was released and signed as an old man). There were strikes in 1981,1994 and 1995.

Mike Schmidt played in 93% of his games(again not counting the coffee year and retirement year).

Brett's 1980 season was only 117 games and like you said in the past those percentages just don't mean the same in shortened years. You have basically said that 'truncated season percentages don't really count'.

Really, the bulk prime of the career is what matters:

Brett had 12 seasons in his career with an OPS+ of 130 or higher....his lowest games played in those years were 115, 117, 123, 124, 139, 139. So half of his prime hitting years he was not a full time player.

150 games should be a given for any star player. The tough ones who play when injured (and ones who don't take days off against good pitchers) should be 158-162 each year. Injuries happen. Take Murray, the bulk of his games missed were from one season(1986). Brett was inconsistent on a yearly basis.

Take Schmidt as an example.

Schmidt had 13 seasons with an OPS+ over 140. I used 140 OPS+ for Schmidt because his prime rates are at a higher level than Brett.

Schmidt's six lowest game totals in those seasons were 147, 148, 150, 151, 154, 154.

Compared to Brett's low games played seasons in his were 115, 117, 123, 124, 139, 139.

'Hey Skip, Guidry is on the hill...I'm gonna take the night off'. Young Langston going tonight? 'Skip, give the kid a chance tonight I want to win the batting title'. 'My shoulder hurts and is sapping my power. I'm gonna ned ten days off to be 100% skip...Dave Chalk could use some AB's'.

That is a big difference. Monument difference in baseball terms.

stevek · June 4, 2025 9:13AM

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Yup, George Brett played less than 140 games in 11 out of his 20 MLB seasons(not counting his cup of coffee debut year although that should count based on some of the methods done on here in the past). In 1981 he was on place for less than 140 as well.

On the opposite end of the spectrum from that era:

Mike Schmidt only had three seasons less than 140 games out of 17 years(not counting cup of coffee year). He didn't sit vs Nolan Ryan to help save his percentages. He played hurt.

Not that it was needed because we already know that Schmidt is the GOAT third baseman. However for those delusional Brett fans who think their boy was better, this is another reason why he wasn't.

Basebal21 · June 4, 2025 6:49PM

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@craig44 said:
Murray and Ripken (until his last couple of seasons) were true iron men. both played in over 90% of his teams games.

I would agree that Brett missed time over the years, but he did play in 85% of his teams games, not including his cup of coffee rookie season. I wouldnt consider 85% ¨part time¨

Not full time like the other elites that did it tho. 85% to 95% is a big difference in the baseball world. Otherwise that would be the same as saying a .270 batting average isn't really any different than .300 batting average.

.270 and .300 isnt really that different. Its a couple extra hits a month and does depend on when the hits come. A .270 guy can be more productive than a .300 guy

@stevek said:

Not that it was needed because we already know that Schmidt is the GOAT third baseman. However for those delusional Brett fans who think their boy was better, this is another reason why he wasn't.

Machado has a good chance of passing him other than homeruns. Those Baltimore teams were pretty bad overall and SD and the NL are not hitter friendly parks like Philly. Anyone that played during the 2020 seas also got robbed of 2/3rds of a season

1948_Swell_Robinson · June 5, 2025 5:37AM

@stevek said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Yup, George Brett played less than 140 games in 11 out of his 20 MLB seasons(not counting his cup of coffee debut year although that should count based on some of the methods done on here in the past). In 1981 he was on place for less than 140 as well.

On the opposite end of the spectrum from that era:

Mike Schmidt only had three seasons less than 140 games out of 17 years(not counting cup of coffee year). He didn't sit vs Nolan Ryan to help save his percentages. He played hurt.

Not that it was needed because we already know that Schmidt is the GOAT third baseman. However for those delusional Brett fans who think their boy was better, this is another reason why he wasn't.

Absolutely correct. Schmidt is far superior.

1948_Swell_Robinson · June 5, 2025 5:47AM

'Hey skip, I'm up a few points in the batting title race with just a handful of games left. Langston and Finley on the hill. I'm out coach. Put someone else in.'

1948_Swell_Robinson · June 5, 2025 5:57AM

@Basebal21 said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@craig44 said:
Murray and Ripken (until his last couple of seasons) were true iron men. both played in over 90% of his teams games.

I would agree that Brett missed time over the years, but he did play in 85% of his teams games, not including his cup of coffee rookie season. I wouldnt consider 85% ¨part time¨

Not full time like the other elites that did it tho. 85% to 95% is a big difference in the baseball world. Otherwise that would be the same as saying a .270 batting average isn't really any different than .300 batting average.

Of course they can. Since batting average was the most simple and known term(of old school fans) of what is typically known as elite or not elite, I used that only to make a simple point.

Here:
85% to 95% is a big difference in the baseball world. Otherwise that would be the same as saying a .450 Slugging percentage isn't really any different than .500 slugging percentage.

85% to 95% is a big difference in the baseball world. Otherwise that would be the same as saying a .315 OB% isn't really any different than .350 OB%

85% to 95% is a big difference in the baseball world. Otherwise that would be the same as saying 89 RBI isn't really any different than 100 RBI.

Or, 'we scored ten runs today. The other team scored 11. That is only one more run so not a big deal.'

Those differences/margins(at all the varying levels) can make the difference between having a job or not. Being a starter or not. Being an all star or not. Being an MVP or not. Being a HOFer or not. So yeh, huge difference.

1948_Swell_Robinson · June 5, 2025 6:52AM

@Basebal21 said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@craig44 said:
Murray and Ripken (until his last couple of seasons) were true iron men. both played in over 90% of his teams games.

I would agree that Brett missed time over the years, but he did play in 85% of his teams games, not including his cup of coffee rookie season. I wouldnt consider 85% ¨part time¨

Not full time like the other elites that did it tho. 85% to 95% is a big difference in the baseball world. Otherwise that would be the same as saying a .270 batting average isn't really any different than .300 batting average.

.270 and .300 isnt really that different. Its a couple extra hits a month and does depend on when the hits come. A .270 guy can be more productive than a .300 guy

@stevek said:

Not that it was needed because we already know that Schmidt is the GOAT third baseman. However for those delusional Brett fans who think their boy was better, this is another reason why he wasn't.

Machado has a good chance of passing him other than homeruns. Those Baltimore teams were pretty bad overall and SD and the NL are not hitter friendly parks like Philly. Anyone that played during the 2020 seas also got robbed of 2/3rds of a season

Machado is far away from Mike Schmidt, and not just "Other than HR". Yeh, lets just discount and eliminate the most valuable event, lololol. I should just walk away after that comment, but I'm in a mood.

Schmidt finished with an OPS+ 148. Machado sits at 125. End of story. Go home. There is no 'baseball fanboying way' to rectify that difference with some sort of convoluted stat approach you have begun to do.

BTW, Machado played in a bandbox when with the Orioles, especially for RH hitters when that porch was super small in LF. Petco is a pitchers park and that is already reflected in the OPS+ So no. Good try. But Camden was extreme hitters park for RH hitters. So it would balance either way without it already being included.

Also, those teams with the Orioles were not bad like you said. Far from bad in fact.

Baltimore with Machado: 93 wins, 85 wins, 96 wins, 81 wins, 89 wins, 75 wins. Then the 47 win season that seems to be clouding your mind, of which macahdo was there for 96 games and then was traded to the Dodgers.

So the actual reality is that Machado has played on nothing but stacked teams, not the lie you were trying to say. So now you have to go back and give Machado a NEGATIVE ding in that department when you were trying to give him a positive bump and it turned out you were wrong.

Machado hasn't even been the best hitter in the vast majority of his teams in each year, so his lineups helped him not hurt him like you tried to say. So in reality, what you tried to apply to Machado in regard to the lineups to give him a 'bump'....YOUR bump really goes to Schmidt (per your methodology) in this case.

"Are you sure about those five minutes!?"

stevek · June 5, 2025 6:56AM

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
'Hey skip, I'm up a few points in the batting title race with just a handful of games left. Langston and Finley on the hill. I'm out coach. Put someone else in.'

They wrote a song about that called "Georgy Girl".

😂

Basebal21 · June 5, 2025 3:33PM

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@Basebal21 said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@craig44 said:
Murray and Ripken (until his last couple of seasons) were true iron men. both played in over 90% of his teams games.

I would agree that Brett missed time over the years, but he did play in 85% of his teams games, not including his cup of coffee rookie season. I wouldnt consider 85% ¨part time¨

Not full time like the other elites that did it tho. 85% to 95% is a big difference in the baseball world. Otherwise that would be the same as saying a .270 batting average isn't really any different than .300 batting average.

.270 and .300 isnt really that different. Its a couple extra hits a month and does depend on when the hits come. A .270 guy can be more productive than a .300 guy

@stevek said:

Not that it was needed because we already know that Schmidt is the GOAT third baseman. However for those delusional Brett fans who think their boy was better, this is another reason why he wasn't.

Machado has a good chance of passing him other than homeruns. Those Baltimore teams were pretty bad overall and SD and the NL are not hitter friendly parks like Philly. Anyone that played during the 2020 seas also got robbed of 2/3rds of a season

Machado is far away from Mike Schmidt, and not just "Other than HR". Yeh, lets just discount and eliminate the most valuable event, lololol. I should just walk away after that comment, but I'm in a mood.

Schmidt finished with an OPS+ 148. Machado sits at 125. End of story. Go home. There is no 'baseball fanboying way' to rectify that difference with some sort of convoluted stat approach you have begun to do.

BTW, Machado played in a bandbox when with the Orioles, especially for RH hitters when that porch was super small in LF. Petco is a pitchers park and that is already reflected in the OPS+ So no. Good try. But Camden was extreme hitters park for RH hitters. So it would balance either way without it already being included.

Also, those teams with the Orioles were not bad like you said. Far from bad in fact.

Baltimore with Machado: 93 wins, 85 wins, 96 wins, 81 wins, 89 wins, 75 wins. Then the 47 win season that seems to be clouding your mind, of which macahdo was there for 96 games and then was traded to the Dodgers.

So the actual reality is that Machado has played on nothing but stacked teams, not the lie you were trying to say. So now you have to go back and give Machado a NEGATIVE ding in that department when you were trying to give him a positive bump and it turned out you were wrong.

Machado hasn't even been the best hitter in the vast majority of his teams in each year, so his lineups helped him not hurt him like you tried to say. So in reality, what you tried to apply to Machado in regard to the lineups to give him a 'bump'....YOUR bump really goes to Schmidt (per your methodology) in this case.

"Are you sure about those five minutes!?"

I know we disagree on the value of OPS+ and thats okay. Manny with Baltimore was one of the major reasons they did win as many games as they did

I have nothing against Schmidt and never said that Manny is better just that at 32 he has a chance to be better. Other than Chris Davis Manny was the best hitter on those Os teams. If it wasnt for Trout or Josh Donaldson he likely would have won some MVPs. He was a 35 20 guy in 2015 when Josh Donaldson had his best year. Rbis were kind of low with other than Davis and Jones the rest of the team just couldnt hit. Scoop was alright and Pearce it would be generous to say he was good.

I wouldnt even say that the Padres teams hes been on were stacked. I get why they did what they did now with the owner at the end of his life but the Soto trade destroyed the best farm system in baseball and is the worst trade in sports.

Adrian Gonzalez should have won a few MSPs as well but didnt because of the team record. The voters on awards for the longest time ignore individuals and focus too much on team records.

He has probably 6 or 7 good to solid years left barring injury and his OPS+ numbers are significantly hurt when he was 19 20 and 21. Schmidts first full season was at 23.

A couple 30+ HR seasons and Manny may even pass him for that.

1948_Swell_Robinson · June 6, 2025 6:02AM

@Basebal21 said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@Basebal21 said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@craig44 said:
Murray and Ripken (until his last couple of seasons) were true iron men. both played in over 90% of his teams games.

I would agree that Brett missed time over the years, but he did play in 85% of his teams games, not including his cup of coffee rookie season. I wouldnt consider 85% ¨part time¨

Not full time like the other elites that did it tho. 85% to 95% is a big difference in the baseball world. Otherwise that would be the same as saying a .270 batting average isn't really any different than .300 batting average.

.270 and .300 isnt really that different. Its a couple extra hits a month and does depend on when the hits come. A .270 guy can be more productive than a .300 guy

@stevek said:

Not that it was needed because we already know that Schmidt is the GOAT third baseman. However for those delusional Brett fans who think their boy was better, this is another reason why he wasn't.

Machado has a good chance of passing him other than homeruns. Those Baltimore teams were pretty bad overall and SD and the NL are not hitter friendly parks like Philly. Anyone that played during the 2020 seas also got robbed of 2/3rds of a season

Machado is far away from Mike Schmidt, and not just "Other than HR". Yeh, lets just discount and eliminate the most valuable event, lololol. I should just walk away after that comment, but I'm in a mood.

Schmidt finished with an OPS+ 148. Machado sits at 125. End of story. Go home. There is no 'baseball fanboying way' to rectify that difference with some sort of convoluted stat approach you have begun to do.

BTW, Machado played in a bandbox when with the Orioles, especially for RH hitters when that porch was super small in LF. Petco is a pitchers park and that is already reflected in the OPS+ So no. Good try. But Camden was extreme hitters park for RH hitters. So it would balance either way without it already being included.

Also, those teams with the Orioles were not bad like you said. Far from bad in fact.

Baltimore with Machado: 93 wins, 85 wins, 96 wins, 81 wins, 89 wins, 75 wins. Then the 47 win season that seems to be clouding your mind, of which macahdo was there for 96 games and then was traded to the Dodgers.

So the actual reality is that Machado has played on nothing but stacked teams, not the lie you were trying to say. So now you have to go back and give Machado a NEGATIVE ding in that department when you were trying to give him a positive bump and it turned out you were wrong.

Machado hasn't even been the best hitter in the vast majority of his teams in each year, so his lineups helped him not hurt him like you tried to say. So in reality, what you tried to apply to Machado in regard to the lineups to give him a 'bump'....YOUR bump really goes to Schmidt (per your methodology) in this case.

"Are you sure about those five minutes!?"

I know we disagree on the value of OPS+ and thats okay. Manny with Baltimore was one of the major reasons they did win as many games as they did

I have nothing against Schmidt and never said that Manny is better just that at 32 he has a chance to be better. Other than Chris Davis Manny was the best hitter on those Os teams. If it wasnt for Trout or Josh Donaldson he likely would have won some MVPs. He was a 35 20 guy in 2015 when Josh Donaldson had his best year. Rbis were kind of low with other than Davis and Jones the rest of the team just couldnt hit. Scoop was alright and Pearce it would be generous to say he was good.

I wouldnt even say that the Padres teams hes been on were stacked. I get why they did what they did now with the owner at the end of his life but the Soto trade destroyed the best farm system in baseball and is the worst trade in sports.

Adrian Gonzalez should have won a few MSPs as well but didnt because of the team record. The voters on awards for the longest time ignore individuals and focus too much on team records.

He has probably 6 or 7 good to solid years left barring injury and his OPS+ numbers are significantly hurt when he was 19 20 and 21. Schmidts first full season was at 23.

A couple 30+ HR seasons and Manny may even pass him for that.

Just say it... "Those Orioles teams with Machado aren't as bad as I thought and said they were."

And,

"yes, you are right, Camden was a hitters park and they moved the Left Field wall farther back after Machado was gone."

1948_Swell_Robinson · June 6, 2025 6:46AM

@Basebal21 said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@Basebal21 said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@craig44 said:
Murray and Ripken (until his last couple of seasons) were true iron men. both played in over 90% of his teams games.

I would agree that Brett missed time over the years, but he did play in 85% of his teams games, not including his cup of coffee rookie season. I wouldnt consider 85% ¨part time¨

Not full time like the other elites that did it tho. 85% to 95% is a big difference in the baseball world. Otherwise that would be the same as saying a .270 batting average isn't really any different than .300 batting average.

.270 and .300 isnt really that different. Its a couple extra hits a month and does depend on when the hits come. A .270 guy can be more productive than a .300 guy

@stevek said:

Not that it was needed because we already know that Schmidt is the GOAT third baseman. However for those delusional Brett fans who think their boy was better, this is another reason why he wasn't.

Machado has a good chance of passing him other than homeruns. Those Baltimore teams were pretty bad overall and SD and the NL are not hitter friendly parks like Philly. Anyone that played during the 2020 seas also got robbed of 2/3rds of a season

Machado is far away from Mike Schmidt, and not just "Other than HR". Yeh, lets just discount and eliminate the most valuable event, lololol. I should just walk away after that comment, but I'm in a mood.

Schmidt finished with an OPS+ 148. Machado sits at 125. End of story. Go home. There is no 'baseball fanboying way' to rectify that difference with some sort of convoluted stat approach you have begun to do.

BTW, Machado played in a bandbox when with the Orioles, especially for RH hitters when that porch was super small in LF. Petco is a pitchers park and that is already reflected in the OPS+ So no. Good try. But Camden was extreme hitters park for RH hitters. So it would balance either way without it already being included.

Also, those teams with the Orioles were not bad like you said. Far from bad in fact.

Baltimore with Machado: 93 wins, 85 wins, 96 wins, 81 wins, 89 wins, 75 wins. Then the 47 win season that seems to be clouding your mind, of which macahdo was there for 96 games and then was traded to the Dodgers.

So the actual reality is that Machado has played on nothing but stacked teams, not the lie you were trying to say. So now you have to go back and give Machado a NEGATIVE ding in that department when you were trying to give him a positive bump and it turned out you were wrong.

Machado hasn't even been the best hitter in the vast majority of his teams in each year, so his lineups helped him not hurt him like you tried to say. So in reality, what you tried to apply to Machado in regard to the lineups to give him a 'bump'....YOUR bump really goes to Schmidt (per your methodology) in this case.

"Are you sure about those five minutes!?"

I know we disagree on the value of OPS+ and thats okay. Manny with Baltimore was one of the major reasons they did win as many games as they did

I have nothing against Schmidt and never said that Manny is better just that at 32 he has a chance to be better. Other than Chris Davis Manny was the best hitter on those Os teams. If it wasnt for Trout or Josh Donaldson he likely would have won some MVPs. He was a 35 20 guy in 2015 when Josh Donaldson had his best year. Rbis were kind of low with other than Davis and Jones the rest of the team just couldnt hit. Scoop was alright and Pearce it would be generous to say he was good.

I wouldnt even say that the Padres teams hes been on were stacked. I get why they did what they did now with the owner at the end of his life but the Soto trade destroyed the best farm system in baseball and is the worst trade in sports.

Adrian Gonzalez should have won a few MSPs as well but didnt because of the team record. The voters on awards for the longest time ignore individuals and focus too much on team records.

He has probably 6 or 7 good to solid years left barring injury and his OPS+ numbers are significantly hurt when he was 19 20 and 21. Schmidts first full season was at 23.

A couple 30+ HR seasons and Manny may even pass him for that.

And it is not a matter of "liking" OPS+. There is no arguing against or around it because you will very quickly paint yourself into contradictions quickly as you already have countless times.

Schmidt led the league in HR eight times and has 548 HR and averaged 107 RBI per 162 games. Machado led his league in HR zero times. You talk about MVP shortfalls for Machado. Shmidt actually won three.

Schmidt led the league in RBI five times. Machado zero. So if you don't 'like' OPS or OPS+ then it doesn't matter any way you slice it.

You bring up these lineup things and they actually work against you, because if you ignore OPS+, then realize the following pitfalls in your 'lineups arguments.'

In 1980 Schmidt had a unanimous MVP season with a true monster season with 49 HR and 121 RBI. The best next three HR hitters on his team were 19, 11, and 9. Next best RBI were 87, 73, and 56.

In 1981 Schmidt had a unanimous MVP season with a true monster season with 31 HR, a .644 SLG% and 1.080 OPS. The best next three HR hitters on his team that year were 9, 6, and 5. That is not a typo. Next three SLG%? .451, .395, and .390.

Again, Schmidt hit 31 HR and the third best hitter on their team hit six. Yes 6.

Schmidt was almost always the best hitter on his team...and the best in the league several times too, lol. Machado had to fight just to be the second best hitter on his own teams, lol.

So again, "are you sure about those five minutes?!" Because everything you said was wrong and every attempt to adjust your statements brings on another contradiction.

PS FYI, if you take out Machado early OPS+ years like you said, then his OPS+ is 129. Valid point, but doesn't make a difference.

craig44 · June 6, 2025 8:59AM

I cannot believe anyone can actually believe MANNY MACHADO is a better player than Michael Jack Schmidt.

Basebal21 · June 6, 2025 1:58PM

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@Basebal21 said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@Basebal21 said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@craig44 said:
Murray and Ripken (until his last couple of seasons) were true iron men. both played in over 90% of his teams games.

I would agree that Brett missed time over the years, but he did play in 85% of his teams games, not including his cup of coffee rookie season. I wouldnt consider 85% ¨part time¨

Not full time like the other elites that did it tho. 85% to 95% is a big difference in the baseball world. Otherwise that would be the same as saying a .270 batting average isn't really any different than .300 batting average.

.270 and .300 isnt really that different. Its a couple extra hits a month and does depend on when the hits come. A .270 guy can be more productive than a .300 guy

@stevek said:

Not that it was needed because we already know that Schmidt is the GOAT third baseman. However for those delusional Brett fans who think their boy was better, this is another reason why he wasn't.

Machado has a good chance of passing him other than homeruns. Those Baltimore teams were pretty bad overall and SD and the NL are not hitter friendly parks like Philly. Anyone that played during the 2020 seas also got robbed of 2/3rds of a season

Machado is far away from Mike Schmidt, and not just "Other than HR". Yeh, lets just discount and eliminate the most valuable event, lololol. I should just walk away after that comment, but I'm in a mood.

Schmidt finished with an OPS+ 148. Machado sits at 125. End of story. Go home. There is no 'baseball fanboying way' to rectify that difference with some sort of convoluted stat approach you have begun to do.

BTW, Machado played in a bandbox when with the Orioles, especially for RH hitters when that porch was super small in LF. Petco is a pitchers park and that is already reflected in the OPS+ So no. Good try. But Camden was extreme hitters park for RH hitters. So it would balance either way without it already being included.

Also, those teams with the Orioles were not bad like you said. Far from bad in fact.

Baltimore with Machado: 93 wins, 85 wins, 96 wins, 81 wins, 89 wins, 75 wins. Then the 47 win season that seems to be clouding your mind, of which macahdo was there for 96 games and then was traded to the Dodgers.

So the actual reality is that Machado has played on nothing but stacked teams, not the lie you were trying to say. So now you have to go back and give Machado a NEGATIVE ding in that department when you were trying to give him a positive bump and it turned out you were wrong.

Machado hasn't even been the best hitter in the vast majority of his teams in each year, so his lineups helped him not hurt him like you tried to say. So in reality, what you tried to apply to Machado in regard to the lineups to give him a 'bump'....YOUR bump really goes to Schmidt (per your methodology) in this case.

"Are you sure about those five minutes!?"

I know we disagree on the value of OPS+ and thats okay. Manny with Baltimore was one of the major reasons they did win as many games as they did

I have nothing against Schmidt and never said that Manny is better just that at 32 he has a chance to be better. Other than Chris Davis Manny was the best hitter on those Os teams. If it wasnt for Trout or Josh Donaldson he likely would have won some MVPs. He was a 35 20 guy in 2015 when Josh Donaldson had his best year. Rbis were kind of low with other than Davis and Jones the rest of the team just couldnt hit. Scoop was alright and Pearce it would be generous to say he was good.

I wouldnt even say that the Padres teams hes been on were stacked. I get why they did what they did now with the owner at the end of his life but the Soto trade destroyed the best farm system in baseball and is the worst trade in sports.

Adrian Gonzalez should have won a few MSPs as well but didnt because of the team record. The voters on awards for the longest time ignore individuals and focus too much on team records.

He has probably 6 or 7 good to solid years left barring injury and his OPS+ numbers are significantly hurt when he was 19 20 and 21. Schmidts first full season was at 23.

A couple 30+ HR seasons and Manny may even pass him for that.

Just say it... "Those Orioles teams with Machado aren't as bad as I thought and said they were."

And,

"yes, you are right, Camden was a hitters park and they moved the Left Field wall farther back after Machado was gone."

And they moved it back in most of the way.

Basebal21 · June 6, 2025 1:59PM

@craig44 said:
I cannot believe anyone can actually believe MANNY MACHADO is a better player than Michael Jack Schmidt.

Never said better, said that he could end up being better which barring injury he could

Basebal21 · June 6, 2025 2:17PM

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@Basebal21 said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@Basebal21 said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@craig44 said:
Murray and Ripken (until his last couple of seasons) were true iron men. both played in over 90% of his teams games.

I would agree that Brett missed time over the years, but he did play in 85% of his teams games, not including his cup of coffee rookie season. I wouldnt consider 85% ¨part time¨

Not full time like the other elites that did it tho. 85% to 95% is a big difference in the baseball world. Otherwise that would be the same as saying a .270 batting average isn't really any different than .300 batting average.

.270 and .300 isnt really that different. Its a couple extra hits a month and does depend on when the hits come. A .270 guy can be more productive than a .300 guy

@stevek said:

Not that it was needed because we already know that Schmidt is the GOAT third baseman. However for those delusional Brett fans who think their boy was better, this is another reason why he wasn't.

Machado has a good chance of passing him other than homeruns. Those Baltimore teams were pretty bad overall and SD and the NL are not hitter friendly parks like Philly. Anyone that played during the 2020 seas also got robbed of 2/3rds of a season

Machado is far away from Mike Schmidt, and not just "Other than HR". Yeh, lets just discount and eliminate the most valuable event, lololol. I should just walk away after that comment, but I'm in a mood.

Schmidt finished with an OPS+ 148. Machado sits at 125. End of story. Go home. There is no 'baseball fanboying way' to rectify that difference with some sort of convoluted stat approach you have begun to do.

BTW, Machado played in a bandbox when with the Orioles, especially for RH hitters when that porch was super small in LF. Petco is a pitchers park and that is already reflected in the OPS+ So no. Good try. But Camden was extreme hitters park for RH hitters. So it would balance either way without it already being included.

Also, those teams with the Orioles were not bad like you said. Far from bad in fact.

Baltimore with Machado: 93 wins, 85 wins, 96 wins, 81 wins, 89 wins, 75 wins. Then the 47 win season that seems to be clouding your mind, of which macahdo was there for 96 games and then was traded to the Dodgers.

So the actual reality is that Machado has played on nothing but stacked teams, not the lie you were trying to say. So now you have to go back and give Machado a NEGATIVE ding in that department when you were trying to give him a positive bump and it turned out you were wrong.

Machado hasn't even been the best hitter in the vast majority of his teams in each year, so his lineups helped him not hurt him like you tried to say. So in reality, what you tried to apply to Machado in regard to the lineups to give him a 'bump'....YOUR bump really goes to Schmidt (per your methodology) in this case.

"Are you sure about those five minutes!?"

I know we disagree on the value of OPS+ and thats okay. Manny with Baltimore was one of the major reasons they did win as many games as they did

I have nothing against Schmidt and never said that Manny is better just that at 32 he has a chance to be better. Other than Chris Davis Manny was the best hitter on those Os teams. If it wasnt for Trout or Josh Donaldson he likely would have won some MVPs. He was a 35 20 guy in 2015 when Josh Donaldson had his best year. Rbis were kind of low with other than Davis and Jones the rest of the team just couldnt hit. Scoop was alright and Pearce it would be generous to say he was good.

I wouldnt even say that the Padres teams hes been on were stacked. I get why they did what they did now with the owner at the end of his life but the Soto trade destroyed the best farm system in baseball and is the worst trade in sports.

Adrian Gonzalez should have won a few MSPs as well but didnt because of the team record. The voters on awards for the longest time ignore individuals and focus too much on team records.

He has probably 6 or 7 good to solid years left barring injury and his OPS+ numbers are significantly hurt when he was 19 20 and 21. Schmidts first full season was at 23.

A couple 30+ HR seasons and Manny may even pass him for that.

And it is not a matter of "liking" OPS+. There is no arguing against or around it because you will very quickly paint yourself into contradictions quickly as you already have countless times.

Schmidt led the league in HR eight times and has 548 HR and averaged 107 RBI per 162 games. Machado led his league in HR zero times. You talk about MVP shortfalls for Machado. Shmidt actually won three.

Schmidt led the league in RBI five times. Machado zero. So if you don't 'like' OPS or OPS+ then it doesn't matter any way you slice it.

You bring up these lineup things and they actually work against you, because if you ignore OPS+, then realize the following pitfalls in your 'lineups arguments.'

In 1980 Schmidt had a unanimous MVP season with a true monster season with 49 HR and 121 RBI. The best next three HR hitters on his team were 19, 11, and 9. Next best RBI were 87, 73, and 56.

In 1981 Schmidt had a unanimous MVP season with a true monster season with 31 HR, a .644 SLG% and 1.080 OPS. The best next three HR hitters on his team that year were 9, 6, and 5. That is not a typo. Next three SLG%? .451, .395, and .390.

Again, Schmidt hit 31 HR and the third best hitter on their team hit six. Yes 6.

Schmidt was almost always the best hitter on his team...and the best in the league several times too, lol. Machado had to fight just to be the second best hitter on his own teams, lol.

So again, "are you sure about those five minutes?!" Because everything you said was wrong and every attempt to adjust your statements brings on another contradiction.

PS FYI, if you take out Machado early OPS+ years like you said, then his OPS+ is 129. Valid point, but doesn't make a difference.

A lot of it is our disagreement over OPS+. Until someone can explain to me how Adrian Gonzalez OPS+ was so low playing in a park that there was like 3 guys who could hit a home run to right center in 2009 before the fences were moved in I have a hard time taking it as the the end all be all. He also didnt win the MVP that year because of his team record which is also why I discount the writers votes on things

They even gave Eckersley an MVP when he pitched 80 innings which is less than 2 weeks of playing for a position player. His ERA+ was also higher than Adrians OPS+ but you can find a bunch of relievers that put up similar numbers to to his "MVP" season. Other than Maybe Ruth you wont really find someone that was more important to a teams offense than Adrian was.

As far as Machado he did come into the league very quickly and young. Ive never said that he is the Goat just that he could be. Hes 32 still in his prime. As long as he doesnt get hurt he has a chance to be it. Hes also spent more than a full year at SS. Schmidt occasional did and both are great players for sure.

Ones career is over and one should have almost a decade left

craig44 · June 6, 2025 3:22PM

@Basebal21 said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@Basebal21 said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@Basebal21 said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@craig44 said:
Murray and Ripken (until his last couple of seasons) were true iron men. both played in over 90% of his teams games.

I would agree that Brett missed time over the years, but he did play in 85% of his teams games, not including his cup of coffee rookie season. I wouldnt consider 85% ¨part time¨

Not full time like the other elites that did it tho. 85% to 95% is a big difference in the baseball world. Otherwise that would be the same as saying a .270 batting average isn't really any different than .300 batting average.

.270 and .300 isnt really that different. Its a couple extra hits a month and does depend on when the hits come. A .270 guy can be more productive than a .300 guy

@stevek said:

Not that it was needed because we already know that Schmidt is the GOAT third baseman. However for those delusional Brett fans who think their boy was better, this is another reason why he wasn't.

Machado has a good chance of passing him other than homeruns. Those Baltimore teams were pretty bad overall and SD and the NL are not hitter friendly parks like Philly. Anyone that played during the 2020 seas also got robbed of 2/3rds of a season

Machado is far away from Mike Schmidt, and not just "Other than HR". Yeh, lets just discount and eliminate the most valuable event, lololol. I should just walk away after that comment, but I'm in a mood.

Schmidt finished with an OPS+ 148. Machado sits at 125. End of story. Go home. There is no 'baseball fanboying way' to rectify that difference with some sort of convoluted stat approach you have begun to do.

BTW, Machado played in a bandbox when with the Orioles, especially for RH hitters when that porch was super small in LF. Petco is a pitchers park and that is already reflected in the OPS+ So no. Good try. But Camden was extreme hitters park for RH hitters. So it would balance either way without it already being included.

Also, those teams with the Orioles were not bad like you said. Far from bad in fact.

Baltimore with Machado: 93 wins, 85 wins, 96 wins, 81 wins, 89 wins, 75 wins. Then the 47 win season that seems to be clouding your mind, of which macahdo was there for 96 games and then was traded to the Dodgers.

So the actual reality is that Machado has played on nothing but stacked teams, not the lie you were trying to say. So now you have to go back and give Machado a NEGATIVE ding in that department when you were trying to give him a positive bump and it turned out you were wrong.

Machado hasn't even been the best hitter in the vast majority of his teams in each year, so his lineups helped him not hurt him like you tried to say. So in reality, what you tried to apply to Machado in regard to the lineups to give him a 'bump'....YOUR bump really goes to Schmidt (per your methodology) in this case.

"Are you sure about those five minutes!?"

I know we disagree on the value of OPS+ and thats okay. Manny with Baltimore was one of the major reasons they did win as many games as they did

I have nothing against Schmidt and never said that Manny is better just that at 32 he has a chance to be better. Other than Chris Davis Manny was the best hitter on those Os teams. If it wasnt for Trout or Josh Donaldson he likely would have won some MVPs. He was a 35 20 guy in 2015 when Josh Donaldson had his best year. Rbis were kind of low with other than Davis and Jones the rest of the team just couldnt hit. Scoop was alright and Pearce it would be generous to say he was good.

I wouldnt even say that the Padres teams hes been on were stacked. I get why they did what they did now with the owner at the end of his life but the Soto trade destroyed the best farm system in baseball and is the worst trade in sports.

Adrian Gonzalez should have won a few MSPs as well but didnt because of the team record. The voters on awards for the longest time ignore individuals and focus too much on team records.

He has probably 6 or 7 good to solid years left barring injury and his OPS+ numbers are significantly hurt when he was 19 20 and 21. Schmidts first full season was at 23.

A couple 30+ HR seasons and Manny may even pass him for that.

And it is not a matter of "liking" OPS+. There is no arguing against or around it because you will very quickly paint yourself into contradictions quickly as you already have countless times.

Schmidt led the league in HR eight times and has 548 HR and averaged 107 RBI per 162 games. Machado led his league in HR zero times. You talk about MVP shortfalls for Machado. Shmidt actually won three.

Schmidt led the league in RBI five times. Machado zero. So if you don't 'like' OPS or OPS+ then it doesn't matter any way you slice it.

You bring up these lineup things and they actually work against you, because if you ignore OPS+, then realize the following pitfalls in your 'lineups arguments.'

In 1980 Schmidt had a unanimous MVP season with a true monster season with 49 HR and 121 RBI. The best next three HR hitters on his team were 19, 11, and 9. Next best RBI were 87, 73, and 56.

In 1981 Schmidt had a unanimous MVP season with a true monster season with 31 HR, a .644 SLG% and 1.080 OPS. The best next three HR hitters on his team that year were 9, 6, and 5. That is not a typo. Next three SLG%? .451, .395, and .390.

Again, Schmidt hit 31 HR and the third best hitter on their team hit six. Yes 6.

Schmidt was almost always the best hitter on his team...and the best in the league several times too, lol. Machado had to fight just to be the second best hitter on his own teams, lol.

So again, "are you sure about those five minutes?!" Because everything you said was wrong and every attempt to adjust your statements brings on another contradiction.

PS FYI, if you take out Machado early OPS+ years like you said, then his OPS+ is 129. Valid point, but doesn't make a difference.

A lot of it is our disagreement over OPS+. Until someone can explain to me how Adrian Gonzalez OPS+ was so low playing in a park that there was like 3 guys who could hit a home run to right center in 2009 before the fences were moved in I have a hard time taking it as the the end all be all. He also didnt win the MVP that year because of his team record which is also why I discount the writers votes on things

They even gave Eckersley an MVP when he pitched 80 innings which is less than 2 weeks of playing for a position player. His ERA+ was also higher than Adrians OPS+ but you can find a bunch of relievers that put up similar numbers to to his "MVP" season. Other than Maybe Ruth you wont really find someone that was more important to a teams offense than Adrian was.

As far as Machado he did come into the league very quickly and young. Ive never said that he is the Goat just that he could be. Hes 32 still in his prime. As long as he doesnt get hurt he has a chance to be it. Hes also spent more than a full year at SS. Schmidt occasional did and both are great players for sure.

Ones career is over and one should have almost a decade left

I will agree with you that Eck winning that MVP was crazy. and I thought so at the time. It was also one of the great travesties of CY Young voting Clemens lost that award to BOTH Eck and Jack McDowell. totally nuts.

Basebal21 · June 6, 2025 8:17PM

@craig44 said:

@Basebal21 said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@Basebal21 said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@Basebal21 said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@craig44 said:
Murray and Ripken (until his last couple of seasons) were true iron men. both played in over 90% of his teams games.

I would agree that Brett missed time over the years, but he did play in 85% of his teams games, not including his cup of coffee rookie season. I wouldnt consider 85% ¨part time¨

Not full time like the other elites that did it tho. 85% to 95% is a big difference in the baseball world. Otherwise that would be the same as saying a .270 batting average isn't really any different than .300 batting average.

.270 and .300 isnt really that different. Its a couple extra hits a month and does depend on when the hits come. A .270 guy can be more productive than a .300 guy

@stevek said:

Not that it was needed because we already know that Schmidt is the GOAT third baseman. However for those delusional Brett fans who think their boy was better, this is another reason why he wasn't.

Machado has a good chance of passing him other than homeruns. Those Baltimore teams were pretty bad overall and SD and the NL are not hitter friendly parks like Philly. Anyone that played during the 2020 seas also got robbed of 2/3rds of a season

Machado is far away from Mike Schmidt, and not just "Other than HR". Yeh, lets just discount and eliminate the most valuable event, lololol. I should just walk away after that comment, but I'm in a mood.

Schmidt finished with an OPS+ 148. Machado sits at 125. End of story. Go home. There is no 'baseball fanboying way' to rectify that difference with some sort of convoluted stat approach you have begun to do.

BTW, Machado played in a bandbox when with the Orioles, especially for RH hitters when that porch was super small in LF. Petco is a pitchers park and that is already reflected in the OPS+ So no. Good try. But Camden was extreme hitters park for RH hitters. So it would balance either way without it already being included.

Also, those teams with the Orioles were not bad like you said. Far from bad in fact.

Baltimore with Machado: 93 wins, 85 wins, 96 wins, 81 wins, 89 wins, 75 wins. Then the 47 win season that seems to be clouding your mind, of which macahdo was there for 96 games and then was traded to the Dodgers.

So the actual reality is that Machado has played on nothing but stacked teams, not the lie you were trying to say. So now you have to go back and give Machado a NEGATIVE ding in that department when you were trying to give him a positive bump and it turned out you were wrong.

Machado hasn't even been the best hitter in the vast majority of his teams in each year, so his lineups helped him not hurt him like you tried to say. So in reality, what you tried to apply to Machado in regard to the lineups to give him a 'bump'....YOUR bump really goes to Schmidt (per your methodology) in this case.

"Are you sure about those five minutes!?"

I know we disagree on the value of OPS+ and thats okay. Manny with Baltimore was one of the major reasons they did win as many games as they did

I have nothing against Schmidt and never said that Manny is better just that at 32 he has a chance to be better. Other than Chris Davis Manny was the best hitter on those Os teams. If it wasnt for Trout or Josh Donaldson he likely would have won some MVPs. He was a 35 20 guy in 2015 when Josh Donaldson had his best year. Rbis were kind of low with other than Davis and Jones the rest of the team just couldnt hit. Scoop was alright and Pearce it would be generous to say he was good.

I wouldnt even say that the Padres teams hes been on were stacked. I get why they did what they did now with the owner at the end of his life but the Soto trade destroyed the best farm system in baseball and is the worst trade in sports.

Adrian Gonzalez should have won a few MSPs as well but didnt because of the team record. The voters on awards for the longest time ignore individuals and focus too much on team records.

He has probably 6 or 7 good to solid years left barring injury and his OPS+ numbers are significantly hurt when he was 19 20 and 21. Schmidts first full season was at 23.

A couple 30+ HR seasons and Manny may even pass him for that.

And it is not a matter of "liking" OPS+. There is no arguing against or around it because you will very quickly paint yourself into contradictions quickly as you already have countless times.

Schmidt led the league in HR eight times and has 548 HR and averaged 107 RBI per 162 games. Machado led his league in HR zero times. You talk about MVP shortfalls for Machado. Shmidt actually won three.

Schmidt led the league in RBI five times. Machado zero. So if you don't 'like' OPS or OPS+ then it doesn't matter any way you slice it.

You bring up these lineup things and they actually work against you, because if you ignore OPS+, then realize the following pitfalls in your 'lineups arguments.'

In 1980 Schmidt had a unanimous MVP season with a true monster season with 49 HR and 121 RBI. The best next three HR hitters on his team were 19, 11, and 9. Next best RBI were 87, 73, and 56.

In 1981 Schmidt had a unanimous MVP season with a true monster season with 31 HR, a .644 SLG% and 1.080 OPS. The best next three HR hitters on his team that year were 9, 6, and 5. That is not a typo. Next three SLG%? .451, .395, and .390.

Again, Schmidt hit 31 HR and the third best hitter on their team hit six. Yes 6.

Schmidt was almost always the best hitter on his team...and the best in the league several times too, lol. Machado had to fight just to be the second best hitter on his own teams, lol.

So again, "are you sure about those five minutes?!" Because everything you said was wrong and every attempt to adjust your statements brings on another contradiction.

PS FYI, if you take out Machado early OPS+ years like you said, then his OPS+ is 129. Valid point, but doesn't make a difference.

A lot of it is our disagreement over OPS+. Until someone can explain to me how Adrian Gonzalez OPS+ was so low playing in a park that there was like 3 guys who could hit a home run to right center in 2009 before the fences were moved in I have a hard time taking it as the the end all be all. He also didnt win the MVP that year because of his team record which is also why I discount the writers votes on things

They even gave Eckersley an MVP when he pitched 80 innings which is less than 2 weeks of playing for a position player. His ERA+ was also higher than Adrians OPS+ but you can find a bunch of relievers that put up similar numbers to to his "MVP" season. Other than Maybe Ruth you wont really find someone that was more important to a teams offense than Adrian was.

As far as Machado he did come into the league very quickly and young. Ive never said that he is the Goat just that he could be. Hes 32 still in his prime. As long as he doesnt get hurt he has a chance to be it. Hes also spent more than a full year at SS. Schmidt occasional did and both are great players for sure.

Ones career is over and one should have almost a decade left

I will agree with you that Eck winning that MVP was crazy. and I thought so at the time. It was also one of the great travesties of CY Young voting Clemens lost that award to BOTH Eck and Jack McDowell. totally nuts.

I honestly cant figure out what happened that year on the voting. Clemens should have been the Cy Young and McGwire, Puckett or maybe Thomas should have been the MVP. Relievers should never be able to win the MVP or CY and pitchers really shouldnt ever be able to win MVP either.

Jack Morris finishing with more votes than Clemens just because he had a couple extra wins just shows how bad the voters can be. Even Mussina and McDowell were both significantly better than Morris if it was going to be a pitcher. Makes even less sense that Morris finished ahead of them in MVP but 5th for the CY. How can you be higher in MVP but not the best pitcher?

craig44 · June 7, 2025 9:07AM

@Basebal21 said:

@craig44 said:

@Basebal21 said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@Basebal21 said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@Basebal21 said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@craig44 said:
Murray and Ripken (until his last couple of seasons) were true iron men. both played in over 90% of his teams games.

I would agree that Brett missed time over the years, but he did play in 85% of his teams games, not including his cup of coffee rookie season. I wouldnt consider 85% ¨part time¨

Not full time like the other elites that did it tho. 85% to 95% is a big difference in the baseball world. Otherwise that would be the same as saying a .270 batting average isn't really any different than .300 batting average.

.270 and .300 isnt really that different. Its a couple extra hits a month and does depend on when the hits come. A .270 guy can be more productive than a .300 guy

@stevek said:

Not that it was needed because we already know that Schmidt is the GOAT third baseman. However for those delusional Brett fans who think their boy was better, this is another reason why he wasn't.

Machado has a good chance of passing him other than homeruns. Those Baltimore teams were pretty bad overall and SD and the NL are not hitter friendly parks like Philly. Anyone that played during the 2020 seas also got robbed of 2/3rds of a season

Machado is far away from Mike Schmidt, and not just "Other than HR". Yeh, lets just discount and eliminate the most valuable event, lololol. I should just walk away after that comment, but I'm in a mood.

Schmidt finished with an OPS+ 148. Machado sits at 125. End of story. Go home. There is no 'baseball fanboying way' to rectify that difference with some sort of convoluted stat approach you have begun to do.

BTW, Machado played in a bandbox when with the Orioles, especially for RH hitters when that porch was super small in LF. Petco is a pitchers park and that is already reflected in the OPS+ So no. Good try. But Camden was extreme hitters park for RH hitters. So it would balance either way without it already being included.

Also, those teams with the Orioles were not bad like you said. Far from bad in fact.

Baltimore with Machado: 93 wins, 85 wins, 96 wins, 81 wins, 89 wins, 75 wins. Then the 47 win season that seems to be clouding your mind, of which macahdo was there for 96 games and then was traded to the Dodgers.

So the actual reality is that Machado has played on nothing but stacked teams, not the lie you were trying to say. So now you have to go back and give Machado a NEGATIVE ding in that department when you were trying to give him a positive bump and it turned out you were wrong.

Machado hasn't even been the best hitter in the vast majority of his teams in each year, so his lineups helped him not hurt him like you tried to say. So in reality, what you tried to apply to Machado in regard to the lineups to give him a 'bump'....YOUR bump really goes to Schmidt (per your methodology) in this case.

"Are you sure about those five minutes!?"

I know we disagree on the value of OPS+ and thats okay. Manny with Baltimore was one of the major reasons they did win as many games as they did

I have nothing against Schmidt and never said that Manny is better just that at 32 he has a chance to be better. Other than Chris Davis Manny was the best hitter on those Os teams. If it wasnt for Trout or Josh Donaldson he likely would have won some MVPs. He was a 35 20 guy in 2015 when Josh Donaldson had his best year. Rbis were kind of low with other than Davis and Jones the rest of the team just couldnt hit. Scoop was alright and Pearce it would be generous to say he was good.

I wouldnt even say that the Padres teams hes been on were stacked. I get why they did what they did now with the owner at the end of his life but the Soto trade destroyed the best farm system in baseball and is the worst trade in sports.

Adrian Gonzalez should have won a few MSPs as well but didnt because of the team record. The voters on awards for the longest time ignore individuals and focus too much on team records.

He has probably 6 or 7 good to solid years left barring injury and his OPS+ numbers are significantly hurt when he was 19 20 and 21. Schmidts first full season was at 23.

A couple 30+ HR seasons and Manny may even pass him for that.

And it is not a matter of "liking" OPS+. There is no arguing against or around it because you will very quickly paint yourself into contradictions quickly as you already have countless times.

Schmidt led the league in HR eight times and has 548 HR and averaged 107 RBI per 162 games. Machado led his league in HR zero times. You talk about MVP shortfalls for Machado. Shmidt actually won three.

Schmidt led the league in RBI five times. Machado zero. So if you don't 'like' OPS or OPS+ then it doesn't matter any way you slice it.

You bring up these lineup things and they actually work against you, because if you ignore OPS+, then realize the following pitfalls in your 'lineups arguments.'

In 1980 Schmidt had a unanimous MVP season with a true monster season with 49 HR and 121 RBI. The best next three HR hitters on his team were 19, 11, and 9. Next best RBI were 87, 73, and 56.

In 1981 Schmidt had a unanimous MVP season with a true monster season with 31 HR, a .644 SLG% and 1.080 OPS. The best next three HR hitters on his team that year were 9, 6, and 5. That is not a typo. Next three SLG%? .451, .395, and .390.

Again, Schmidt hit 31 HR and the third best hitter on their team hit six. Yes 6.

Schmidt was almost always the best hitter on his team...and the best in the league several times too, lol. Machado had to fight just to be the second best hitter on his own teams, lol.

So again, "are you sure about those five minutes?!" Because everything you said was wrong and every attempt to adjust your statements brings on another contradiction.

PS FYI, if you take out Machado early OPS+ years like you said, then his OPS+ is 129. Valid point, but doesn't make a difference.

A lot of it is our disagreement over OPS+. Until someone can explain to me how Adrian Gonzalez OPS+ was so low playing in a park that there was like 3 guys who could hit a home run to right center in 2009 before the fences were moved in I have a hard time taking it as the the end all be all. He also didnt win the MVP that year because of his team record which is also why I discount the writers votes on things

They even gave Eckersley an MVP when he pitched 80 innings which is less than 2 weeks of playing for a position player. His ERA+ was also higher than Adrians OPS+ but you can find a bunch of relievers that put up similar numbers to to his "MVP" season. Other than Maybe Ruth you wont really find someone that was more important to a teams offense than Adrian was.

As far as Machado he did come into the league very quickly and young. Ive never said that he is the Goat just that he could be. Hes 32 still in his prime. As long as he doesnt get hurt he has a chance to be it. Hes also spent more than a full year at SS. Schmidt occasional did and both are great players for sure.

Ones career is over and one should have almost a decade left

I will agree with you that Eck winning that MVP was crazy. and I thought so at the time. It was also one of the great travesties of CY Young voting Clemens lost that award to BOTH Eck and Jack McDowell. totally nuts.

I honestly cant figure out what happened that year on the voting. Clemens should have been the Cy Young and McGwire, Puckett or maybe Thomas should have been the MVP. Relievers should never be able to win the MVP or CY and pitchers really shouldnt ever be able to win MVP either.

Jack Morris finishing with more votes than Clemens just because he had a couple extra wins just shows how bad the voters can be. Even Mussina and McDowell were both significantly better than Morris if it was going to be a pitcher. Makes even less sense that Morris finished ahead of them in MVP but 5th for the CY. How can you be higher in MVP but not the best pitcher?

I have looked pretty closely into Clemens over the years and there were more than one year that he got ¨jobbed¨ out of Cy Young awards. he hands down should have won in 90, 92 and 05. there is an argument he should/could have won in 94. His 96 season was also much better than most gave him credit for.

conversely, he should not have won the award in either 01 or 04. I think, he probably should have 8 instead of 7. buy hey, 7 is nothing to complain about!!

Basebal21 · June 7, 2025 2:23PM

@craig44 said:

@Basebal21 said:

@craig44 said:

@Basebal21 said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@Basebal21 said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@Basebal21 said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@craig44 said:
Murray and Ripken (until his last couple of seasons) were true iron men. both played in over 90% of his teams games.

I would agree that Brett missed time over the years, but he did play in 85% of his teams games, not including his cup of coffee rookie season. I wouldnt consider 85% ¨part time¨

Not full time like the other elites that did it tho. 85% to 95% is a big difference in the baseball world. Otherwise that would be the same as saying a .270 batting average isn't really any different than .300 batting average.

.270 and .300 isnt really that different. Its a couple extra hits a month and does depend on when the hits come. A .270 guy can be more productive than a .300 guy

@stevek said:

Not that it was needed because we already know that Schmidt is the GOAT third baseman. However for those delusional Brett fans who think their boy was better, this is another reason why he wasn't.

Machado has a good chance of passing him other than homeruns. Those Baltimore teams were pretty bad overall and SD and the NL are not hitter friendly parks like Philly. Anyone that played during the 2020 seas also got robbed of 2/3rds of a season

Machado is far away from Mike Schmidt, and not just "Other than HR". Yeh, lets just discount and eliminate the most valuable event, lololol. I should just walk away after that comment, but I'm in a mood.

Schmidt finished with an OPS+ 148. Machado sits at 125. End of story. Go home. There is no 'baseball fanboying way' to rectify that difference with some sort of convoluted stat approach you have begun to do.

BTW, Machado played in a bandbox when with the Orioles, especially for RH hitters when that porch was super small in LF. Petco is a pitchers park and that is already reflected in the OPS+ So no. Good try. But Camden was extreme hitters park for RH hitters. So it would balance either way without it already being included.

Also, those teams with the Orioles were not bad like you said. Far from bad in fact.

Baltimore with Machado: 93 wins, 85 wins, 96 wins, 81 wins, 89 wins, 75 wins. Then the 47 win season that seems to be clouding your mind, of which macahdo was there for 96 games and then was traded to the Dodgers.

So the actual reality is that Machado has played on nothing but stacked teams, not the lie you were trying to say. So now you have to go back and give Machado a NEGATIVE ding in that department when you were trying to give him a positive bump and it turned out you were wrong.

Machado hasn't even been the best hitter in the vast majority of his teams in each year, so his lineups helped him not hurt him like you tried to say. So in reality, what you tried to apply to Machado in regard to the lineups to give him a 'bump'....YOUR bump really goes to Schmidt (per your methodology) in this case.

"Are you sure about those five minutes!?"

I know we disagree on the value of OPS+ and thats okay. Manny with Baltimore was one of the major reasons they did win as many games as they did

I have nothing against Schmidt and never said that Manny is better just that at 32 he has a chance to be better. Other than Chris Davis Manny was the best hitter on those Os teams. If it wasnt for Trout or Josh Donaldson he likely would have won some MVPs. He was a 35 20 guy in 2015 when Josh Donaldson had his best year. Rbis were kind of low with other than Davis and Jones the rest of the team just couldnt hit. Scoop was alright and Pearce it would be generous to say he was good.

I wouldnt even say that the Padres teams hes been on were stacked. I get why they did what they did now with the owner at the end of his life but the Soto trade destroyed the best farm system in baseball and is the worst trade in sports.

Adrian Gonzalez should have won a few MSPs as well but didnt because of the team record. The voters on awards for the longest time ignore individuals and focus too much on team records.

He has probably 6 or 7 good to solid years left barring injury and his OPS+ numbers are significantly hurt when he was 19 20 and 21. Schmidts first full season was at 23.

A couple 30+ HR seasons and Manny may even pass him for that.

And it is not a matter of "liking" OPS+. There is no arguing against or around it because you will very quickly paint yourself into contradictions quickly as you already have countless times.

Schmidt led the league in HR eight times and has 548 HR and averaged 107 RBI per 162 games. Machado led his league in HR zero times. You talk about MVP shortfalls for Machado. Shmidt actually won three.

Schmidt led the league in RBI five times. Machado zero. So if you don't 'like' OPS or OPS+ then it doesn't matter any way you slice it.

You bring up these lineup things and they actually work against you, because if you ignore OPS+, then realize the following pitfalls in your 'lineups arguments.'

In 1980 Schmidt had a unanimous MVP season with a true monster season with 49 HR and 121 RBI. The best next three HR hitters on his team were 19, 11, and 9. Next best RBI were 87, 73, and 56.

In 1981 Schmidt had a unanimous MVP season with a true monster season with 31 HR, a .644 SLG% and 1.080 OPS. The best next three HR hitters on his team that year were 9, 6, and 5. That is not a typo. Next three SLG%? .451, .395, and .390.

Again, Schmidt hit 31 HR and the third best hitter on their team hit six. Yes 6.

Schmidt was almost always the best hitter on his team...and the best in the league several times too, lol. Machado had to fight just to be the second best hitter on his own teams, lol.

So again, "are you sure about those five minutes?!" Because everything you said was wrong and every attempt to adjust your statements brings on another contradiction.

PS FYI, if you take out Machado early OPS+ years like you said, then his OPS+ is 129. Valid point, but doesn't make a difference.

A lot of it is our disagreement over OPS+. Until someone can explain to me how Adrian Gonzalez OPS+ was so low playing in a park that there was like 3 guys who could hit a home run to right center in 2009 before the fences were moved in I have a hard time taking it as the the end all be all. He also didnt win the MVP that year because of his team record which is also why I discount the writers votes on things

They even gave Eckersley an MVP when he pitched 80 innings which is less than 2 weeks of playing for a position player. His ERA+ was also higher than Adrians OPS+ but you can find a bunch of relievers that put up similar numbers to to his "MVP" season. Other than Maybe Ruth you wont really find someone that was more important to a teams offense than Adrian was.

As far as Machado he did come into the league very quickly and young. Ive never said that he is the Goat just that he could be. Hes 32 still in his prime. As long as he doesnt get hurt he has a chance to be it. Hes also spent more than a full year at SS. Schmidt occasional did and both are great players for sure.

Ones career is over and one should have almost a decade left

I will agree with you that Eck winning that MVP was crazy. and I thought so at the time. It was also one of the great travesties of CY Young voting Clemens lost that award to BOTH Eck and Jack McDowell. totally nuts.

I honestly cant figure out what happened that year on the voting. Clemens should have been the Cy Young and McGwire, Puckett or maybe Thomas should have been the MVP. Relievers should never be able to win the MVP or CY and pitchers really shouldnt ever be able to win MVP either.

Jack Morris finishing with more votes than Clemens just because he had a couple extra wins just shows how bad the voters can be. Even Mussina and McDowell were both significantly better than Morris if it was going to be a pitcher. Makes even less sense that Morris finished ahead of them in MVP but 5th for the CY. How can you be higher in MVP but not the best pitcher?

I have looked pretty closely into Clemens over the years and there were more than one year that he got ¨jobbed¨ out of Cy Young awards. he hands down should have won in 90, 92 and 05. there is an argument he should/could have won in 94. His 96 season was also much better than most gave him credit for.

conversely, he should not have won the award in either 01 or 04. I think, he probably should have 8 instead of 7. buy hey, 7 is nothing to complain about!!

He absolutely should have won that one on the Astros. He would have been a 30 game winner if they had even a remotely competent offense. Same thing is happening to Skenes this year where hes likely to have a losing record with like a 2 era which he currently has. Too many voters put to much weight into the W/L of record and pitchers. I would have given Skenes the CY last year too, its not his fault the Pirates manipulated his service time, but Im okay with Sale winning it.

Then theres the whole thing of people who wont vote for players awards if their team doesnt make the playoffs thing thats been been around for a long time. All the qualifiers and things out of a players hands really just make me not put a lot of weight in the awards. Even the HOF now has just become a popularity contest

estang · June 8, 2025 8:12AM

This is an interesting subject. What percentage of a team's games did Hall of Famers play?

How does this trend over the decades or eras, and through today's stars of the game.

Availability or Durability is often overlooked.

It did nothing for Jim Marshall to get into the Pro Football Hall of Fame and there's a huge contrast in availability to playing in the NFL versus MLB - which is understandable - given the disparity in games played and the physicality of each sport.

It's reported that Rod Carew was moody & that may have led to him not playing every day.

In 1970 he tore up his knee badly and only played 51 games. In 1979 he tore ligaments in his thumb and in 1982 he broke his hand.

Does anyone have tips on the web where to find such a metric of availability/durability? Perhaps it's on Baseball Reference? One would think there should be a metric for this and they track the number of days on the DL.

Unfortunately, guys like Mike Trout and Byron Buxton have been poster guys for this subject...

Basebal21 · June 8, 2025 9:53PM

@estang said:
This is an interesting subject. What percentage of a team's games did Hall of Famers play?

How does this trend over the decades or eras, and through today's stars of the game.

Number of games has changed over the years. Percentage of games played was likely higher but the number of actual games a player plays in a year is higher now. Spring training is longer and a thing now, the season is the longest its ever been, the WBC forces some players to be game ready during Spring Training dates, some players play winter ball, travel is a lot more etc.

Its much more of a grind now with not only the amount of playing year round but the workout training required toll on the body. Theres far less off days now than before, spring training really should be shortened as well

Does anyone have tips on the web where to find such a metric of availability/durability? Perhaps it's on Baseball Reference? One would think there should be a metric for this and they track the number of days on the DL.

Best way is to really just number of games played vs number that could have. Dont penalize for a September call up or late season call up to manipulate service time their "full year".

There are advanced stats that do take it into consideration but theres so much more that goes into them that it gets convoluted

Unfortunately, guys like Mike Trout and Byron Buxton have been poster guys for this subject...

I wouldnt put those two in the same sentence in terms of comparables. Buxton played one full season and wasnt very good. during it and his talent level really isnt on the same level of Trout. Theres a lot of pitchers like May and Walker Buehler where multiple TJ surgeries took legit CY type guys to back end starters.

Acuna could end up being on that list with the multiple ACL surgeries already

Panama Mutiny · June 25, 2025 8:26AM

You lost me at part time players

Modern players catch the scorn but Brett, Gwynn, & Carew were part time players for half+ careers

Comments